W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Browser UI & privacy - a discussion with Ben Laurie

From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:12:55 +0300
Message-ID: <506D6127.6040507@gmx.net>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, "public-identity@w3.org" <public-identity@w3.org>, hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
Hi Henry,

I am not sure I am able to put your mail and your contribution into the 
right context.

Are you suggesting some terminology for privacy? If so, where is it?

Ciao
Hannes

PS: You may want to have a look at the privacy terminology in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations-03

It took us some time to find the right level for engineers.

On 10/04/2012 12:54 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> The identity groups are currently split up between public-webid, public-xg-webid
> (which will now receive all mails from public-webid) and the public-identity
> mailing list.
>
> On the public-webid mailing lists we recently had a very lengthy
> and detailed discussion with Ben Laurie [1], which I think is of interest
> to members of these other groups. The archives are quite difficult to read [2]
> so I am sending here a resume of some of the highlights. I also attached
> the pdf as printed from my e-mail client as it gives color syntax highlighting,
> making it much easier to follow.
>
> First we spent quite a lot of time I think beating around the bush of
> misunderstandings. The first e-mail where things started clearing up
> was when I proposed a simple working definition of privacy after a
> philosopher friend of mine suggested that our misunderstandings might be
> related to an ambiguous and vague use of the terms. The working definition
> I proposed was:
>
> "A communication between two people is private if  the only people who
> have access to the communication are the two people in question. One
> can easily generalise to groups: a conversation between groups of people
> is private (to the group) if the only people who can participate/read the
> information are members of that group..."
>
>
>
>
>
> We then made big strides by working out where we agreed. We agree that
> transparency of identity is important at all times (which seems
> to be a potentially EU legal requirement [3]) I discover some new information
> about how Google Chrome works, and argue that it still does not satisfy the
> original transparency principles we agreed to.
>
>
>
>
>
> After a few more exchanges I show using WebID certificates could
> lead to enhanced transparency in identity usage for browsers in the future
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope this helps. Btw. The WebID Incubator group will be meeting at TPAC [4],
> so see you there for further detailed discussions.
>
> 	Henry
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Laurie
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Sep/thread.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Oct/0021.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 10:13:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:31 UTC