- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:42:37 +0200
- To: <andreip@google.com>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <jmorris@cdt.org>, <dougt@dougt.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Andrei Thanks, looking at it again. So section 4.1 has the key points. Cases include implicit/explicit user consent, or some rule mechansm, or implicit trust. This is not inconsistent with DAP directions. It does not specify any mechanisms. I'm taking a look at the test cases, http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/test-suite/#ua-tests Do you have any comment on the status of the testing and plans going forward? Thanks regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:23 PM, ext Andrei Popescu wrote: > Hi Frederick, > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: >> Andrei >> >>> But the Geolocation WG did not reject the idea of taking action to protect privacy. I think it is regrettable to make such a statement. >> >> Was the Geolocation WG able to take any action to help resolve the privacy concerns? > > Our action was to include a normative section in the spec (Security > and privacy considerations) that describes what steps conforming User > Agents and applications must take in order to protect privacy. > FYI, this was tracked in http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/5 > >> >> If so, what can the DAP WG learn from this work? >> > > The Geolocation WG's responses to the Last Call comments summarize our > conclusions and also contain plenty of references to the extensive > discussions we had on this topic: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Oct/0009.html > > > Thanks, > Andrei
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 18:43:50 UTC