W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Update on privacy work

From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:55:58 -0400
Cc: W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <37C777E6-FE96-41C5-BE5D-B6A9A5D49C8E@fjhirsch.com>
To: "Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>, Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>
I believe Nick  and/or Christine were to document PING privacy considerations to share with DAS (for Vibration, Ambient Light, general etc)

Perhaps this has already been done - Christine/Nick, what is the status of PING comments to DAS?

Thanks

regards Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, Devices and Sensors WG

> On Jun 11, 2016, at 7:05 AM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please see my answers below.
> 
> 2016-06-06 5:43 GMT+01:00 Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>:
> Lukasz
> 
> Thanks for the update, makes sense
> 
> see inline for additional
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> > On May 28, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks for pinging me.
> > I am going through a very... eventful time recently. I keep my eyes open on the lists and works.
> >
> > First of all, if I understand correctly, privacy considerations for Vibration are accepted. I'm unsure if we should include a detailed discussion about cross-device, cross-domain and others. Perhaps this should be included in the sensors that can actually read/interpret data (vibration "writes").
> > It is also closed in GH.
> >
> > For the generic sensors API, I listed [1] and [2] as possible issues that might need to be addressed ("upstream").
> >
> > For Ambient Light Sensors, I am waiting for a message indication that the considerations in Vibration API are fine. Then I go to ALS. Yes, indeed I would use my report as a blueprint. But I am thinking of something more, too. We discussed some privacy aspects at [3].
> >
> > Is there any "delivery" date I should keep in mind for ALS?
> 
> what is status of PING comments?
> 
> I'm unsure, weren't you (or rather, Nick Doty) supposed to write down a note on this a while ago?
> For the moment, the considerations section seem sound, albeit general, but hopefully address [1].
> Are we still waiting for [2]
>  
> 
> >
> > I'm also wondering if there may be some other outside-the-box issues, so I asked Riju if it's possible to test the initial implementation (thanks, Riju!). Now I need to close my current tasks outside of W3C and proceed to this as well.
> >
> >
> > As for the PDF report, I am also wondering if we could lead this to a W3C Note. Personally, I think this would be an interesting work.
> > In this case, I am volunteering to be an editor. I would ask for a co-editor (from DAS and/or PING)?
> 
> Perhaps you can start with creating an additional note using a ReSpec template (perhaps Dom has pointer to latest)
> 
> Sounds good, although I'm not versed in this ;-)
> Do you think I would need a co-editor?
> Initial vision and final aims should be highlighted in the beginning, of course. 
> 
> > In this case, we should also come up with recommendations for web authors?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this
> 
> Would it be a proper place to include recommendations to Web designers?
> Something similar to 'Web Accessibility guidelines [3]. 
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Feb/0072.html  
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2016AprJun/0014.html
> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:08 UTC