W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: PING - please volunteer - Ambient Light Events

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:18:37 -0500
Message-ID: <50D0894D.2080602@cdt.org>
To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
CC: wilton@isoc.org, erin@elchemy.org, public-privacy@w3.org
And if I were to share my nascent review of Proximity Events API 
review, that would be the same conclusion. best, Joe

On Tue Dec 18 09:16:43 2012, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> I think that this spec illustrates quite nicely how useless it is to
> deal with privacy at the level of each individual specification.
>
> Hannes
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: ext Erin Kenneally
> Sent: 12/18/2012 3:56 PM
> To: public-privacy@w3.org
> Cc: wilton@isoc.org
> Subject: Re: PING - please volunteer - Ambient Light Events
>
> I was able to quickly read through the spec wrt privacy and security
> implications, precisely because it is an extract of the larger more
> complicated Sensor API which in and of itself raises no reasonable
> concerns.  The capability *potential* does indeed raise privacy &
> security issues, but the segregation of specific events (ambient light
> being the one in this instance) for implementation simplicity also
> allows precise identification/exclusion of p&s issues.  So, while
> Robin's comments about capabilities will prove to be pertinent in the
> review of other components of the aggregate spec, I think we need to be
> mindful not to lose sight of the impacts of the interaction between
> individual specs... and that can only be done when all components are at
> the table.
>
> /erin
>
> --
> Erin E. Kenneally, M.F.S., J.D.
> CEO, Founder
> eLCHEMY, Inc.
> 8677 Villa La Jolla Dr., #1133
> La Jolla, CA  92037
> www.elchemy.org
> On 12/18/12 5:21 AM, Robin Wilton wrote:
> > I have the following comments on Section 4 - Security and privacy
> > considerations:
> >
> > 1 - I fully appreciate the point, made elsewhere about security &
> > privacy considerations for specifications in general, that if a spec
> > raises no security & privacy concerns beyond the "normal, generic" ones,
> > there's little benefit in re-stating them in every spec.
> >
> > 2 -  That said, I think it's just worth noting the following and then,
> > probably, moving on:
> >
> >   * In itself, an Ambient Light event handling spec raises no specific
> >     privacy/security concerns, but in combination with other kinds of
> >     data, ambient light data could conceivably have privacy/security
> >     implications;
> >   * The kind of device that contains photosensors/similar detectors and
> >     is capable of implementing such a spec can also reasonably be
> >     expected to have capabilities for network communication and
> >     geo-location, and possibly also image/sound capture. etc.;
> >   * Therefore, although ambient light data in itself is not a
> >     privacy/security concern, it's reasonable to assume that it will be
> >     present in conjunction with networking and geo-location
> >     capabilities, and that a device could be remotely instructed to
> >     report other data (such as location, images, sound, etc.) in
> >     response to an ambient light event;
> >   * This raises the normal set of concerns about whether such behaviour
> >     is evident to the user, whether user consent and control are a
> >     factor, auditability and transparency of the use of such data, and
> >     so on.
> >
> >
> > I know these are more to do with the application that *uses* the ambient
> > light capability than the ambient light capability itself, so as I say,
> > this is mainly me throwing in my privacy 2c-worth. Having done so for
> > this spec, I'll try and restrain myself for other specs ;^)
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > Robin Wilton
> > Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
> > Internet Society
> >
> > email: wilton@isoc.org <mailto:wilton@isoc.org>
> > Phone: +44 705 005 2931
> > Twitter: @futureidentity
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 Dec 2012, at 07:46, Christine Runnegar wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all.
> >>
> >> We are looking for 3 (or more) reviewers.
> >>
> >> The draft is available at
> >>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ambient-light-20121213/
> >>
> >> Deadline for completion of the review is 17 January 2012.
> >>
> >> P.S. The specification is short (only about 2 pages).
> >>
> >> Please volunteer!
> >>
> >> Christine and Tara
> >
>
>
>
>
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient[s] and
> may contain privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by phone or reply email and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>
>

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Senior Staff Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I ST NW STE 1100
Washington DC 20006-4011
(p) 202-407-8825
(f) 202-637-0968
joe@cdt.org
PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 15:19:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 15:19:28 GMT