Re: wording for the privacy section

Hi Alissa,

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
>> If I understand this right, you are proposing that a client (e.g. a
>> Web page) using the API would also get a UsageRules object, in
>> addition to the Position object. Further to Ian's question, could you
>> please clarify how would the client be constrained to obey the rules
>> in the UsageRules object?
>
>
> The client would not be constrained to obey the rules

Ok, but this answer leaves me scratching my head, too: how exactly is
adding the UsageRules object going to protect the user's privacy? In
the answer to Ian's questions you propose a UI where the user agent
prompts the user to specify values for these rules (e.g.
isRetransmissionAllowed). But the UA has absolutely no idea whether
these rules will actually be observed, so this doesn't help at all
against a malicious application. Right? So the only sites that will
observe these rules are the well-behaved ones, which probably don't
need these rules anyway. Or is there something that I am still
missing?

> well). Every client is not going to use every piece of data it receives via
> an API call. But that doesn't mean sending that data is not worthwhile for
> clients that will make use of the data.
>

Right, but I thought you were talking about a privacy protection
mechanism that was actually going to help against malicious Web sites.
It seems this is not the case?

Thanks,
Andrei

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 14:34:38 UTC