- From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:12:55 +0300
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, "public-identity@w3.org" <public-identity@w3.org>, hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
Hi Henry, I am not sure I am able to put your mail and your contribution into the right context. Are you suggesting some terminology for privacy? If so, where is it? Ciao Hannes PS: You may want to have a look at the privacy terminology in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations-03 It took us some time to find the right level for engineers. On 10/04/2012 12:54 PM, Henry Story wrote: > The identity groups are currently split up between public-webid, public-xg-webid > (which will now receive all mails from public-webid) and the public-identity > mailing list. > > On the public-webid mailing lists we recently had a very lengthy > and detailed discussion with Ben Laurie [1], which I think is of interest > to members of these other groups. The archives are quite difficult to read [2] > so I am sending here a resume of some of the highlights. I also attached > the pdf as printed from my e-mail client as it gives color syntax highlighting, > making it much easier to follow. > > First we spent quite a lot of time I think beating around the bush of > misunderstandings. The first e-mail where things started clearing up > was when I proposed a simple working definition of privacy after a > philosopher friend of mine suggested that our misunderstandings might be > related to an ambiguous and vague use of the terms. The working definition > I proposed was: > > "A communication between two people is private if the only people who > have access to the communication are the two people in question. One > can easily generalise to groups: a conversation between groups of people > is private (to the group) if the only people who can participate/read the > information are members of that group..." > > > > > > We then made big strides by working out where we agreed. We agree that > transparency of identity is important at all times (which seems > to be a potentially EU legal requirement [3]) I discover some new information > about how Google Chrome works, and argue that it still does not satisfy the > original transparency principles we agreed to. > > > > > > After a few more exchanges I show using WebID certificates could > lead to enhanced transparency in identity usage for browsers in the future > > > > > > I hope this helps. Btw. The WebID Incubator group will be meeting at TPAC [4], > so see you there for further detailed discussions. > > Henry > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Laurie > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Sep/thread.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Oct/0021.html > [4] http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/ > >
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 10:13:33 UTC