- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:30:07 +0900
- To: "<Ian.Oliver@nokia.com>" <Ian.Oliver@nokia.com>
- Cc: <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>, <erin@elchemy.org>, <public-privacy@w3.org>, <wilton@isoc.org>
Le 20 déc. 2012 à 18:53, <Ian.Oliver@nokia.com> <Ian.Oliver@nokia.com> a écrit : > This particular spec/API in the form here has no privacy aspects at all. If there are then it will be buried down in the infrastructure supporting such an API/Spec and thus be out of scope and highly context dependent. In most circumstances, the technology is neutral because its goal is to propagate a message. HTTP logs are not privacy invasive, but their records on a long term might become privacy invasive. The strategy is then becoming a question such as * may I access to the information I created? * may I record it myself (locally)? * am I able to have actions on this personal record? * may I block partly or totally the record of the information? (think about geolocation API) * may I fake it? (think about fuzzy geolocation or voluntary fake location) In the case of Ambient events, the first privacy issue we could raise, does the API provide a mechanism (messaging channel) to block and/or modify the information at the user level. -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 21 December 2012 15:31:02 UTC