Re: Update on privacy work

Hello Lukasz,

Thanks for the pointer to the updates to the privacy and security considerations for the Vibration API.

I’ll refer these to PING and make sure this is on the agenda for the next call (28 July UTC 16).

Christine

> On 24 Jun 2016, at 12:09 PM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Let's also see if the recent (https://w3c.github.io/vibration/#security-and-privacy-considerations) updates to the considerations are in line.
> If I understand correctly, (hopefully) they are?
> 
> Best
> Lukasz
> 
> 2016-06-23 19:55 GMT+01:00 Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>:
> I believe Nick  and/or Christine were to document PING privacy considerations to share with DAS (for Vibration, Ambient Light, general etc)
> 
> Perhaps this has already been done - Christine/Nick, what is the status of PING comments to DAS?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> regards Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Chair, Devices and Sensors WG
> 
> > On Jun 11, 2016, at 7:05 AM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please see my answers below.
> >
> > 2016-06-06 5:43 GMT+01:00 Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>:
> > Lukasz
> >
> > Thanks for the update, makes sense
> >
> > see inline for additional
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > > On May 28, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Thanks for pinging me.
> > > I am going through a very... eventful time recently. I keep my eyes open on the lists and works.
> > >
> > > First of all, if I understand correctly, privacy considerations for Vibration are accepted. I'm unsure if we should include a detailed discussion about cross-device, cross-domain and others. Perhaps this should be included in the sensors that can actually read/interpret data (vibration "writes").
> > > It is also closed in GH.
> > >
> > > For the generic sensors API, I listed [1] and [2] as possible issues that might need to be addressed ("upstream").
> > >
> > > For Ambient Light Sensors, I am waiting for a message indication that the considerations in Vibration API are fine. Then I go to ALS. Yes, indeed I would use my report as a blueprint. But I am thinking of something more, too. We discussed some privacy aspects at [3].
> > >
> > > Is there any "delivery" date I should keep in mind for ALS?
> >
> > what is status of PING comments?
> >
> > I'm unsure, weren't you (or rather, Nick Doty) supposed to write down a note on this a while ago?
> > For the moment, the considerations section seem sound, albeit general, but hopefully address [1].
> > Are we still waiting for [2]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm also wondering if there may be some other outside-the-box issues, so I asked Riju if it's possible to test the initial implementation (thanks, Riju!). Now I need to close my current tasks outside of W3C and proceed to this as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > As for the PDF report, I am also wondering if we could lead this to a W3C Note. Personally, I think this would be an interesting work.
> > > In this case, I am volunteering to be an editor. I would ask for a co-editor (from DAS and/or PING)?
> >
> > Perhaps you can start with creating an additional note using a ReSpec template (perhaps Dom has pointer to latest)
> >
> > Sounds good, although I'm not versed in this ;-)
> > Do you think I would need a co-editor?
> > Initial vision and final aims should be highlighted in the beginning, of course.
> >
> > > In this case, we should also come up with recommendations for web authors?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this
> >
> > Would it be a proper place to include recommendations to Web designers?
> > Something similar to 'Web Accessibility guidelines [3].
> >
> > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Feb/0072.html

> > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2016AprJun/0014.html

> > [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/

> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 14:10:11 UTC