Re: Geo-fencing for responsible use of spatial data from vehicles

A key concept from a privacy protection point of view would be maintaining
anonymity, because of the temporal sensitivity of vehicle tracking data
that might call for limitations in data capture at the beginning and end of
each journey to hide start and end points which could be associated with
home and work addresses for example. So rather than a geofence a time fence
might be a useful concept ?

In terms of actual spatial limitation I would keep it simple to a minimum
bounding box perhaps, although surely there is a natural limitation in
terms of the range of the sensors onboard the vehicle ?

It's great to have this conversation !

Ed


[image: Google Logo]
Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist
eparsons@google.com
+44 7825 382263 @edparsons



On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:39, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@ogc.org> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> OGC staff contributed to the requirements assessment for the Unmanned
> Aerial Systems work in ANSI (see the roadmap here:
> https://www.ansi.org/standards-coordination/collaboratives-activities/unmanned-aircraft-systems-collaborative).
> There are standards that can be used to represent a geofence, but no
> standard to exactly describe a geofence in general (there are specs for
> various industries for domain-specific fencing).
>
> In short, geofences may be defined in increasingly complex ways, starting
> with a point and radius to a box to an arbitrary polygon to a buffer around
> a corridor…. And those fences can be 2D or 3D in geometry and have temporal
> characteristics for a period of validity. Finally, geofences include or
> exclude, e.g., leaving a fenced area can result in a trigger or entering a
> fenced area can trigger an action.
>
> Best Regards,
> Scott
>
>
> *Scott SimmonsChief Standards Officer | Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)*
> Office: +1 970 682 1922 <+1%20970-682-1922> | Mobile: +1 970 214 9467
> <+1%20970-214-9467>
> ssimmons@ogc.org | ogc.org | @opengeospatial
>
> *Sign up for OGC News*
> <https://ogc.us4.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=704e02f81107a6caab1568067&id=4e4528fd9d>
>
> On Mar 30, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jo and Spatial Data experts,
>
> The Automotive group would like to be able to come up with a modest set
> of parameters that could influence whether an application is permitted
> to sample data on a vehicle.
>
> We already have granular access control for signals so an application
> should be restricted to only information deemed pertinent and would
> likely only send a subset off the vehicle for bandwidth/cost/privacy
> considerations. We figure we can influence the access control
> authorization system based on additional parameters.
>
> As to thoughts on parameters for restricting data collection we have a
> few that initially come to mind:
>
> * Time of day, concept of eg off-work hours and personal use of company
> vehicle
> * geofence boundaries**
> * explicit opt-in/out override on a whole as well as granular per data
> point, specific purpose
>
> Geo-fencing in particular is what I'm hoping to get input from the OGC
> +others crowd in SDW group.
>
> The shape of the "fenced" area can vary. We are hearing in practice,
> the privacy settings may involve user drawing an amorphous shape on a
> map, specify municipalities, counties, regions or give a radius.
> Representing that concisely is our problem. A simple rectangular shape
> would require four sets of coordinate, radius one coordinate and a
> distance plus means to calculate, county or other geographic boundary
> could be a look-up based on current location, and a free drawn shape
> more complex.
>
> Is there a geo-fencing definition convention or standard that might
> facilitate?
>
> If there are other thoughts this question provokes or suggested
> references, please share.
>
> --
> Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> W3C Automotive Lead
> https://www.w3.org/auto
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.ogc.org/webinars>
>