Re: Privacy Icon Study

At the last workshop we discussed this, and I think I and others raised the point that the icons indeed can only work against a background of some normal practices.  An icon can say "our third-party disclosure policy is the fairly-permissive as defined by the W3C" but that still leaves the definition to be done.

As for do not track, it is, as far as I can tell, a polite notice, kind of the equivalent of leaving a "privacy please" door tag on an unlocked door.  For those determined to violate privacy, it is no deterrent at all, but for those willing to respect it when asked, it should/could work.


On Feb 28, 2011, at 16:06 , Mark Lizar wrote:

> 
> I am still not sure exactly what  privacy ICONS are going to accomplish without the added infrastructure of consent management, consumer driven enforcement, consistent regulation across jurisdictions.. etc. 
> 
> How can privacy icons be verified? Do the ICONS come with a standard way to layer privacy  notices?  Didnt Trust-E work on layered notices in 2006? 
> 
> It seems that ICONS are about 1/4 of what needs to be worked out.    Is it possible for someone to point me to information on what the privacy icon initiative at TrustE is actually intended to accomplish?  Does Truste have information on its auditing and accreditation progam for privacy icons? (or how such a program will work?)  Is there such a program at this time? 
> 
> I apologise for all the questions.  As a researcher I have been working towards proposing the development of a global standard and structure for notices across jurisdictions for quite some time now and yet I find this privacy Icon approach sparse on actually cause and effect information.  Similar to the do not track initiative the privacy icons initiative at this level seems shallow and without actual foundation for enforcement.  
> 
> Am I wrong? 
> 
> - Mark Lizar
> 
> On 24 Feb 2011, at 16:39, Kevin Trilli wrote:
> 
>> Hi all-
>> 
>> Related, but independent, to Sören's note, TRUSTe released its first study on privacy icons, which you can read about on our blog if you are interested:
>> 
>> http://www.truste.com/blog/?p=1172
>> 
>> Please contact Travis (User Experience Designer) directly (cc:d) if you would like to interact or provide any feedback.
>> 
>> Thanks Sören for sharing, we will take a look at the latest version of the standard.
>> 
>> Kevin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Sören Preibusch wrote:
>> 
>>> Several proposals of iconographic representations of privacy concepts have
>>> been brought up by academia, industry and individual enthusiasts. Some of
>>> these proposals were discussed at the Workshop and over this list.
>>> 
>>> The Unicode Standard, version 6.0 now introduces a plethora of over 750 new
>>> symbols, emoticons, and pictographs, including characters for sunrise over
>>> mountains (U+1F304), Bactrian camel (U+1F42B, "has two humps"),
>>> extraterrestrial alien (U+1F47D), circus tent (U+1F3AA), face screaming in
>>> fear (U+1F631), etc..
>>> 
>>> Two (printable) characters may be more relevant for us:
>>> 
>>> 1F50F	LOCK WITH INK PEN 
>>> 	= privacy
>>> 1F510	CLOSED LOCK WITH KEY
>>> 	= secure
>>> 
>>> The subtext is the intended meaning. Visual representations can be found at
>>> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-6.0/U60-1F300.pdf#page=10. As
>>> pointed out by the Consortium, "the glyphs in [the] charts are only
>>> representative; there can be wide variation in the glyphs used to represent
>>> any particular character". 
>>> 
>>> Whilst a single new character in this high range may not be interesting in
>>> itself, the combining characters in the standard, such as U+20E0 (combining
>>> enclosing circle backslash), can be added to express ideas such as "no
>>> privacy" or "not secure".
>>> 
>>> Sören
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.