- From: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:05:21 -0500
- To: Angel Machín <angel.machin@gmail.com>
- CC: <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
Angel, I want to thank the WG for acknowledging the concerns I raised during last call. Although we still believe this API is too weak in the area of privacy, I respect the process that led to the decisions made by the WG. Thank you, -Marc Linsner- On 10/29/09 12:36 PM, "Angel Machín" <angel.machin@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Marc, > > We appreciate your spending time on following and reviewing the > specification and sending us your comments. > Please find our detailed responses to your comments below. > > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to public-geolocation@w3.org > by November 12 2009. > In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are > satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. > > On behalf of the W3C Geolocation Working Group, Lars Erik Bolstad, Angel > Machin > > > Marc Linsner wrote: >> Cisco manufactures systems for locating mobile wireless devices, >> locating devices on IP networks, and applications that consume location >> information. >> The lack of suitable attributes for policy control in the API proposed >> by this WG make the proposed API unusable for many applications. Cisco >> strongly agrees with issue #1 as cited by CDT. Privacy of location >> data is of huge concern to us and we ask the WG to provide a solution >> that allows transfer of users privacy preferences. >> > > > The proposal put forward by Geopriv were extensively discussed over a > period of several months before, during, and after the f2f meeting in > December 2008. Both proposals met significant resistance in the > working group and the decision was taken not to adopt either of them. > > The discussions and conclusions were tracked here: > Should the Geolocation API include privacy information? : > http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/2 > GEOPRIV WG proposal for privacy within the API : > http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/4 > > The fact that the working group decided not to adopt the Geopriv > proposals does not mean that the group didn't manifest concerns about > users' privacy. The intense discussions around this issue did > contribute significantly to the wording of the privacy considerations > section of the specification. The working group concluded that privacy > protection does not belong in the Geolocation API itself, but is > better handled as part of a more generic privacy and security > framework for device access. > > The recently formed Device API and Policy Working Group is chartered > to develop precisely such a framework > (http://www.w3.org/2009/05/DeviceAPICharter). > > >> As to issue #2 in the CDT text, we believe the W3C should perform >> detailed investigation into the possible IPR issues surrounding this >> work to ensure protection of W3C members. > > > Regarding this point, please see the response sent out to the comments from > CDT: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Oct/0009.html > > >> Marc Linsner >> Consulting Engineer, Office of the CTO Cisco Systems, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 13:05:58 UTC