Re: Proposed text for privacy requirements

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that having privacy icons is a  
great idea (it sounds like it would remove end-user confusion)

How would this relate to the definition of Javascript APIs? I assume  
it would be an indicator of a specifically chosen privacy policy, at  
least in some key set of attributes.

Thus I think I agree with Bryan that we are back to defining policy  
appropriately and how to bind that to an instantiated API.

Is this correct, or am I missing another aspect of the implications?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:56 PM, ext Alissa Cooper wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Paddy Byers wrote:
>
>> You're thinking of something like the Creative Commons "license
>> deed" (for example [0]) ?
>>
>> Thanks - Paddy
>>
>> [0]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>
>
> The design space is pretty vast, and the question of what gets
> represented is obviously separate from the question of how it gets
> represented. The notion of compact privacy policies has been around at
> least since P3P if not before. There have also been a number of
> efforts to develop a set of privacy icons [0][1][2]. These can get
> quite prescriptive in what they can express, but that could be a
> benefit. On the far less complex end of the spectrum, apps could just
> be given a text field in which to declare a small snippet of their
> policies in human-readable form. If this kind of policy communication
> is something we decide to pursue, it's probably worth exploring the
> whole range of options.
>
> [0] http://identityproject.lse.ac.uk/mary.pdf
> [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons
> [2] http://asset.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/data-privacy-icons-v01.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 18:54:59 UTC