Re: Last call comments from Cisco

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