W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Comments and questions about the Data Sensitive Section

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 11:18:47 -0700
Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7B22042E-24A3-414E-859B-00A1D4883357@lbl.gov>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
I like the idea of putting this in the data access section. It’s really a matter of how you treat data that cannot be accessed or that requires authorization for access.
-Annette

> On May 5, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Berna and Annette,
> 
> I have recently reconnected with the Privacy Interest Group and looking at this questionaire that we might be able to use as food for thought in this section:
> 
> https://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/ 
> 
> I thought we had more best practices at one time but I agree with the mismatch of the title of the section and the misalignment of BP 17 data unavailable, the way it is written now it seems to fit more with the Data Access section.
> 
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news..
> 
> I can make recommendations if you still have time.
> 
> Eric 
> 
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We received the following comments from Annette about the Data Sensitive introduction section. 
> 
> "The introduction gives a lot of advice that sounds like it should be in a BP. I find it awkward that we offer it in this form instead of a BP. If we want to say that it is out of scope, then we shouldn't be offering all this advice in an introduction."
> 
> "the discussion of sensitive data still needs a disclaimer, and the text should me more general rather than focused only on personal privacy."
> 
> When I was reviewing the text, I started to think if we should change the title and the introduction of the section to talk about data unavailability in general. As presented in the title of the BP ("Provide an explanation for data that is not available"), it refers to data that is not available (in general) rather than just Sensitive Data.
> 
> So, I'd like to know the opinion of the group abou this. Do you think we should change the title and the scope of the introduction of the Data Sensitive section?
> 
> I also have doubts about the subtitle: "For data that is not open, provide an explanation about how the data can be accessed and who can access it."
> 
> I'm not sure if we should use the term "open". Maybe, we can say "For data that is not available" rather than "For data that is not open". What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> Berna
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2016 18:46:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 7 May 2016 18:46:45 UTC