Re: Update on privacy work

Hello,

Let's also see if the recent (
https://w3c.github.io/vibration/#security-and-privacy-considerations)
updates to the considerations are in line.
If I understand correctly, (hopefully) they are?

Best
Lukasz

2016-06-23 19:55 GMT+01:00 Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>:

> 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/
> >
>
>