- From: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:01:08 +0200
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Geolocation Working Group WG <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Dear Rigo, Since this working group was formally established about 9 months ago we have spent more or less the entire time discussing privacy protection in one form or another. We have done this because everyone involved in this work agree that privacy protection is extremely important when it comes to location data. The consensus we have reached after a lot of discussion is that privacy protection should not be part of the Geolocation API itself, but should be addressed in this specification in the form of privacy considerations (guidelines) for implementors of the API and recipients of the location information. Yes, there is disagreement about this and we could easily have continued this discussion for a long time still, but we also have an obligation as a working group to move on. It is Angel's and my opinion as chairs that the specification is now in a state where we can make the transition to Last call, and we have set the deadline for raising formal objections to this to Thursday next week, June 25th. Best regards, Lars Erik Rigo Wenning wrote: > On Friday 19 June 2009, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >> We have decied on this issue not once, but twice. It does not >> make any sense to endlessly repeat the same arguments. I would >> like to kindly ask the Chairs to settle this situation once and >> for all. >> > > The mission of the group, expressed in the charter is: > The mission of the Geolocation Working Group, part of the Ubiquitous Web Applications Activity, is to define a secure and privacy-sensitive interface for using client-side location information in location-aware Web applications. Looks like so far, the spec is not even 80/20 in light of the state of the art in privacy. W3C is used to do better in this space. > > I think it is deeply unfair (to all, not only me) if you consider geopriv, Richard's proposal, my proposal and the discussion with TLR the same issue, > > I see that my email > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Jun/0167.html > was now automagically linked to the tracker under ISSUE-10 > > This ends this episode. > > Best, > > Rigo >
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 09:01:50 UTC