Re: Adding another permission? A guide

Hi,

The TAG questionnaire (including with my update) has something similar.

That said, it is not strictly a privacy question, so including it
explicitly muddles this focus.

śr., 3 paź 2018 o 09:35 Jason A. Novak <jnovak@apple.com> napisał(a):

> One element of the conversation at the permissions workshop was, roughly
> ‘Just because we can add a feature to the web platform, should we,
> particularly if it needs to be gated on a permission? Does the benefit
> outweigh the risk / annoyance to the user / cognitive load?”.  While the
> exact words would need to be refined, I think that there’s a good question
> there that is worth considering adding to the PING questionnaire; I have a
> variant of it in discussion with some folks in PING now.
>
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:23 AM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> wt., 2 paź 2018 o 23:53 Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>
> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi Lukasz,
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 12:06 AM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> One question: who is to ultimately decide/etc as to whether a permission
>> is justified and/or makes sense? Consensus? Permissions WG? TAG? A
>> dedicated 'elders of permissions' group?
>>
>>
>> I wasn't envisioning any new enforcement/decision-making mechanisms with
>> this guide. If there is general agreement on these questions or this
>> approach, then I think it could come up during TAG review, or PING (Privacy
>> Interest Group) review, or better yet, be considered by
>> implementers/feature designers before getting to those review stages.
>>
>
> That's what I think, PING+TAG may be enough.  But again, implementors
> should be included as well (and the major ones are currently, at least in
> the TAG).
>
>
>>
>> That being said, there was the suggestion at this meeting that other
>> stakeholders could play a role. For example, civil society groups like
>> Consumer Reports might evaluate browsers or web sites in how they handle
>> permissions and having a common rubric might make those evaluations viable
>> or more effective. Or researchers can keep track of where the system is
>> falling short.
>>
>
> ...but on the other hand, PING+TAG would be a bit confined, so not clear
> how to meaningfully manage 'engagement'. Thinking of it, such edge-cases
> might be rare. But if there many be any, I would not feel comfortable not
> thinking of this in advance. Alternatively, to simplify: designate a task
> force composed out of TAG/PING members, so people know where to "call" (but
> then - how to actually contact is a separate issue).
>
> I think we should not exclude the possible evolution on the permissions
> front (both their meaning, potential expansion, and so).
>
> Kind regards
> Lukasz
>
>
>>
>