- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:54:59 -0700
- To: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, public-geolocation-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF0783E9C7.F5A731D5-ON882574EF.00773B0B-882574EF.007863F4@us.ibm.com>
Hi, Sorry I haven't followed the security issues very closely lately, but I'll pipe in now to say that I don't think you want to say MUST NOT. I'm not even sure you should say SHOULD NOT, but certainly not MUST NOT. There are many different usage scenarios where the geolocation APIs might be used. Suppose you have a company intranet application that uses location information, and that application is installed as a widget onto a mobile phone (that the company buys for its employees), with appropriate digsig information that confirms that the application comes from the right company. In this case (and likely in many others), there is no reason why the implementation should ask user permission before the application can access the location APIs. I would propose that the specification include loosely worded text that talks about the importance of privacy concerns and suggests that in many common scenarios the implementation should gain explicit user permission before allowing an application to gain access to this APIs. My general model for security in W3C specs is that the spec should highlight the security concerns and suggest possible ways for implementations to address those concerns, and nothing else. It is better to leave the definition of explicit security policy (e.g., "MUST prompt the user") to the rest of the industry. In the mobile space, OMTP or OMA are better places for establishing security policies. (Believe me, W3C committees will be much more enjoyable and fast-moving if you can push security policy questions off to a different consortium.) Jon "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.c om> To Sent by: public-geolocation public-geolocatio <public-geolocation@w3.org> n-request@w3.org cc Subject 10/27/2008 01:55 wording for the privacy section PM Hello, Regarding the privacy issues, I'd like to propose the following wording: "A conforming implementation MUST NOT allow an application to use this API to obtain geolocation data without user permission. A conforming implementation MUST allow the user to revoke the permission to an application that is allowed to use this API to obtain geolocation data." We'd also have to define what a "conforming implementation" is (i.e. one that implements all the interfaces in the specification, and satisfies all other MUST-, REQUIRED- and SHALL-level criteria.) What do you think? Thanks, Andrei
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic00179.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Monday, 27 October 2008 21:56:05 UTC