[WG-P3] Anna Slomovic's Follow up thread (RE: IAWG P3 Agendas going into Berlin)
mark at smartspecies.com
Sun May 8 15:31:25 EDT 2011
I completely agree with usability being the first and foremost
I believe this is where a notice structure/protocol that provides and
immediate indication of control/protection/privacy in perhaps an
iconic form will be very potent. IN addition, I have been exploring
the concept of notice and consent tracking via a credential to
increase privacy usability. The idea being that notices, consent etc
can then be managed post/pre credential transaction. A tactic that
has me thinking a federated notice standard/structure could greatly
increase usability and enable integration of other Kantara efforts and
emerging identity solutions like UMA.
After thoroughly reviewing P3P, I believe that a mistake P3P made at
the beginning of their effort was deciding that the trading of privacy
preferences via notice was the needed privacy solution online.
Clearly this has not been the case.
On 8 May 2011, at 19:50, Susan Landau wrote:
> I think that Anna, Colin, Jeff are all saying the same thing, albeit
> in slightly different ways. I strongly concur with what is being
> proposed. However, as we allow models that address the principles
> at different strengths, we will also want to keep strong sight of
> usability. Without it, we can develop an assessment standard, but a
> completely unusable system (think P3P). So this aspect is crucial.
>> On 8 May 2011, at 13:01, j stollman wrote:
>>> I would suggest that perhaps too much is being bundled into the
>>> collective privacy principles. Perhaps these need to be broken
>>> down into groups that can be scored together. This would imply
>>> that multiple privacy "scores" would be required to be evaluated
>>> before an entity decides to enter into a transaction. But, at
>>> least, the scoring of each group would be consistent and auditable.
>>> For transaction X, I may require a score of 3-4-5. For
>>> transaction Y, I may be OK with 2-1-3. But I could always
>>> establish meaningful targets because the group scores are
>>> internally consistent.
>>> In my personal view, for example, I consider notice to be distinct
>>> from privacy and inclusive of elements in addition to a privacy
>>> policy (e.g., how information is stored and protected). I don't
>>> see any reason to incorporate notice into privacy. It needs its
>>> own scoring system.
>>> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis at hotmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>> <<I think all entities at all levels would need to address all
>>> principles in some way, but how they do it will differ and depend
>>> on the level(s) they choose, their role on the identity
>>> ecosystem, their business model, and whatever else turns out to be
>>> Yes, on reflection, I think you are right Anna.
>>> Though that makes it that little bit harder to write too..not so
>>> much write, but we Kantarians are going to have to take some sort
>>> of position on that, or at least give guidance to assessors.
>>> To: colin_wallis at hotmail.com; annaticktin at me.com
>>> CC: rfurr at safe-biopharma.org; rgw at zygma.biz;
>>> mark at smartspecies.com; anna.slomovic at equifax.com; myisha.frazier-mcelveen at truestonefed.com
>>> ; dervlaoreilly at me.com; rainer at hoerbe.at; jbradley at mac.com; susan.landau at privacyink.org
>>> ; stollman.j at gmail.com; eve at xmlgrrl.com; unger at vdeskservices.com
>>> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 11:24:37 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Anna Slomovic's Follow up thread (RE: IAWG P3 Agendas
>>> going into Berlin)
>>> From: anna.slomovic at equifax.com
>>> I think your synthesis is spot on. The only point on which I would
>>> differ is the ability to choose Principles. I think all entities
>>> at all levels would need to address all principles in some way,
>>> but how they do it will differ and depend on the level(s) they
>>> choose, their role on the identity ecosystem, their business
>>> model, and whatever else turns out to be relevant.
>>> As for assessments, I agree that there will be criteria for each
>>> LOA, LOC, and LOP, and the assessor will check whether the entity
>>> complies with its chosen levels.
>>> Hooray for progress!
>>> Anna Slomovic
>>> CPO, Equifax
>>> Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
>>> -----Original message-----
>>> From: Colin Wallis <colin_wallis at hotmail.com>
>>> To: Anna Ticktin <annaticktin at me.com>
>>> Cc: "rfurr at safe-biopharma.org" <rfurr at safe-biopharma.org>, Richard
>>> Wilsher <rgw at zygma.biz>, Mark Lizar <mark at smartspecies.com>, "anna.slomovic at equifax.com
>>> " <anna.slomovic at equifax.com>, "myisha.frazier-mcelveen at truestonefed.com
>>> " <myisha.frazier-mcelveen at truestonefed.com>,
>>> "dervlaoreilly at me.com" <dervlaoreilly at me.com>, Rainer Hoerbe <rainer at hoerbe.at
>>> >, John Bradley <jbradley at mac.com>, Susan Landau <susan.landau at privacyink.org
>>> >, Jeff Stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com>, Eve Maler
>>> <eve at xmlgrrl.com>, "unger at vdeskservices.com" <unger at vdeskservices.com
>>> Sent: Sat, May 7, 2011 10:13:57 GMT+00:00
>>> Subject: Anna Slomovic's Follow up thread (RE: IAWG P3 Agendas
>>> going into Berlin)
>>> Sorry that I am out of range of my govt.nz email now, and while I
>>> forwarded heaps of threads to my Hotmail, I missed Anna S's.
>>> I re-read it again today (Saturday) and offer this - which does
>>> work for Anna T's call to action too I think.
>>> Having re-read Anna S's email, I can see her viewpoint - we can't
>>> do a PF split by LOA job. Why? She gave plenty of reasons. But for
>>> me it's because each deployment may have different objectives
>>> here. Some objectives cut across the whole gamit of LOAs. Others
>>> don't. By and large it is deployment specific.
>>> Anna points out the pieces of the emerging jigaw we have now..the
>>> LOPs the LOCs etc.
>>> And I agree with her, these are orthoganal with LOA. This morning
>>> I thought that term was not the right one, or at least she was
>>> overstating it. As I've mulled it over during the day, I think
>>> she's right.
>>> So what can we do with what we've got? We know we have to do
>>> something - and fast.
>>> How about this?
>>> We have the Principles analysis pretty much done.
>>> We have the concepts in the community of LOP and LOC etc. There is
>>> notional stuff we know that sits above this but leave that for
>>> the ISO frameworks of this world right now, OK?
>>> We know the objective is to audit the CSPs/IdPs (and RPs soon Anna
>>> S. The IAWG know they need to add the RP aspect to what is now
>>> only a CSP/IdP IAF, so assume they do that and the PF targets both).
>>> So let's try to assemble the Privacy Framework like this:
>>> We list the Principles and a brief description (put the analysis
>>> as an Annex), with a description of what 'full/successful
>>> deployment' looks like
>>> We list the LOP, with a description of what 'full/successful
>>> deployment' looks like
>>> We list the LOCs, with a description of what 'full/successful
>>> deployment' looks like ..
>>> ..and anything else we deem relevant here....we could kind of
>>> include that 'verification' notion of Jay's, to apply to the
>>> identity proofing parts of the IAF.
>>> We then REQUIRE that that party seeking conformance with the IAF's
>>> PF, describe its service and the PI that is to be collected/stored/
>>> exchanged etc, noting the actors and so on..
>>> We then REQUIRE that the party chooses the mix of Principles,
>>> LOPs, LOCs etc that it deems applicable for the service, and state
>>> specifically how these will be deployed.
>>> So when it comes to certifying these parties, the Assessors job
>>> for Kantara will be two fold:
>>> 1) to determine that the right mix has been chosen for the service
>>> it's being applied to
>>> 2) to determine that the mix has been deployed correctly.
>>> (Anyone fancy being the assessor..not me! But what we are saying
>>> is 'if you use the KI framework this our our bottom online
>>> on privacy for the service/s you are
>>> getting certified for)
>>> So I think this is greenfields stuff, and we won't get it right
>>> first time, but I think it may be a start.
>>> And I think it sits OK with Anna S's comment "..create a privacy
>>> structure orthogonal to the LOA structure and integrated into
>>> the IAF as an additional set of
>>> What do you think?
>>> I know I couldn't write it, but I know there are folks on this
>>> list that could. And if they did, it would be ground-breaking work.
>>> CC: rfurr at safe-biopharma.org; RGW at Zygma.biz;
>>> mark at smartspecies.com; anna.slomovic at equifax.com; Myisha.Frazier-McElveen at truestonefed.com
>>> ; dervlaoreilly at me.com; rainer at hoerbe.at; jbradley at mac.com; colin_wallis at hotmail.com
>>> From: annaticktin at me.com
>>> Subject: Re: IAWG P3 Agendas going into Berlin
>>> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:03:37 -0700
>>> To: Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz
>>> Indeed, Colin.
>>> As you can see from my thread below, the P3 and IAWG meet in
>>> succession on Tuesday. Plus, they are sandwiched between two
>>> Assurance and Certification sync sessions, as well as a Trust
>>> Framework Meta Model and Business Cases for Trusted Federations
>>> session. These are all great opportunities for interdependent
>>> groups to get on the same page, as you say—
>>> Again, please follow on with any thoughts on firm agenda topics
>>> for these sessions. Let's get to talking so we can hurry up and
>>> Yup, I sent this from my iPad.
>>> On May 5, 2011, at 21:51, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz>
>>> It would be ideal if the P3WG and IAWG folks could attend each
>>> others sessions to the greatest extent possible, to increase
>>> understanding/get on same page…
>>> From: Anna Ticktin [mailto:annaticktin at me.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, 6 May 2011 5:26 a.m.
>>> To: Rich Furr; Richard Wilsher; Colin Wallis; Mark Lizar; Anna
>>> Cc: Myisha Frazier-McElveen; Dervla O'Reilly; Hörbe Rainer; John
>>> Subject: IAWG P3 Agendas going into Berlin
>>> Hello All—
>>> Many thanks for your time and commitment to today's lengthy P3
>>> discussion. I think all would agree on it's value as a means of
>>> bridging the communication gap between the IAWG and P3.
>>> With that, I'm keen to capitalize on the freshness of the dialogue
>>> and channel this momentum into drafting relevant agendas for the
>>> upcoming F2F in Berlin. Clearly the value of having cross-
>>> representative discussions is apparent, so I'm asking that all of
>>> you (with your vocal dogs in this hunt!) weigh in.
>>> What comes to mind is a need for  a consensus on direction and
>>> next steps and  roadmaps. The IAWG has one, the TFWMM could
>>> easily be fleshed out, and It seems we are working toward
>>> identifying those paths and deliverables in the P3W with a call
>>> such as today's. This has been a most effective tool in other
>>> workgroups, and must be understood to:
>>> This message contains information from Equifax Inc. which may be
>>> confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient,
>>> please refrain from any disclosure, copying, distribution or use
>>> of this information and note that such actions are prohibited. If
>>> you have received this transmission in error, please notify by e-
>>> mail postmaster at equifax.com.
>>> Jeff Stollman
>>> stollman.j at gmail.com
>>> 1 202.683.8699
> WG-P3 mailing list
> WG-P3 at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WG-P3