W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > April to June 2017

RE: Walk through a paradigmatic privacy review in 'public' (TPAC)?

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 19:39:56 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, singer@apple.com <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>, public-privacy@w3.org <public-privacy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0102015be9934dcb-3592ed99-0449-4ac1-8f5a-ce30662c9a2f-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
>> So I would like to work through an example spec. and how the privacy considerations ended up being written, as a way to show/teach people how to fish for themselves. The model where a small interest group does the privacy review post-facto is unsustainable, IMHO, for two reasons (a) the group is too small and (b) ‘wide review’ stage is waaay too late to be thinking about privacy implications.
>>
>> Makes sense?
Yes :)

Here is an example presentation from 2013 by Hannes Tschofenig that may be helpful in this context: 

https://github.com/hannestschofenig/tschofenig-ids/raw/master/PrivacyTutorial/iab-privacy-considerations.pptx

Suggestion for a walkthrough:
1. Description of what was done.
2. What privacy concerns were raised / discussed?
3. What changes have been made in response to those discussions?
4. Lessons learned 

Rob

—
Sent from browser, all error self inflicted.

PGP id: CC4F3863
PGP fingerprint: 1D00 A9FD 7CCB A5A5 850E 2149 BEA0 20B7 CC4F 3863 [public key]

Social media: @rvaneijk, github, linkedin, ssrn, stackoverflow <http://stackoverflow.com/users/4725192/rvaneijk?tab=profile> .
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 19:40:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 May 2017 19:40:35 UTC