W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > March 2009

Re: geolocation privacy statement strawman

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:35:08 +0100
Message-ID: <708552fb0903300335x10111fa1v94fe41b6518811c3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>
Cc: Angel Machín <angel.machin@gmail.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-geolocation@w3.org

Here is a new draft wording based on the feedback received so far.

Privacy considerations for implementers of the Geolocation API:

User Agents must not send location information to websites without
express permission of the user. Browsers should acquire permission
through a user interface which will include the URI of the document
origin. All permissions should be revocable, and User Agents should
respect revoked permissions.

Some User Agents will have prearranged trust relationships that do not
require such user interfaces. For example, a Web browser will present
a user interface when a Web site performs a geolocation request.
However, a voip telephone may not present any user interface when
using location information to perform an E911 function.

Privacy considerations for recipients of location information:

The two primary concerns regarding recipients of location information
are retention and retransmission. Recipients must only use the
location information for the task for which it was provided to them
and must dispose of it once completed, unless expressly permitted to
do so. Recipients must also take measures to protect this information
against unauthorized access. If location information is stored, users
should be allowed to update and delete this information. The recipient
of location information should not retransmit the location information
without the user’s consent. Care should be taken when retransmitting
and use of HTTPS is encouraged. Furthermore, a clear and accessible
privacy policy should be made available to all users that details the
usage of location data. This should include any exceptions to the
guidelines listed above.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Dirk Segers <dirk.segers@vodafone.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Looks very good to me, just 2 minor suggestions below.
> Regarding the example of calling emergency services : as in Europe the
> passing of the location is mandatory for calls to emergency services,
> for Europe the wording "may not" would even be "is not allowed to"...

Ok, but I think it's fine to keep as is, since that sentence shows
just an example of when it is reasonable not to present a user
interface before acquiring the user's location.

> Regarding the two primary concerns with the recipients of geolocation
> information, one might add a 3rd one (or alternatively include it in
> "data retention" more explicitly), being the concern to ensure proper
> protection of the geolocation data with the recipient (eg against
> unauthorised access by the staff of the website owner and/or access to
> these data by unauthorised 3rd parties).

Added the following sentence "Sites must also take measures to protect
this information against unauthorized access". Do you think we need to
be more specific than this?

> Also if this aspect is covered
> by the privacy policy we might want to mention it explicitly here as
> well.

I'm not sure I fully understand. Should we explicitly mention that the
privacy policy may say something about how the location information is
protected against unauthorized access? I've added a sentence that
explains how does the privacy policy relate to this guidelines. Would
you think that is enough?

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Angel Machín <angel.machin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
> IMHO, I think it should be: "permissions *must* be revocable, and
> applications *must* respect revoked permissions".
> If User Agents store these permissions internally they have to be revocable
> by users at any time and the UI must allow it.

As these sections are meant to be guidelines, I think we should be
using the verb "should" in all cases except where we have a good
reason not to. We're saying that the location must not be disclosed
without user consent but, beyond that, I think the verb "should" is
the appropriate one.

Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 10:35:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:54 UTC