RE: Art 10: Issue 4 - Security Measures

OK I agree on this.

>**-----Original Message-----
>**From: Lorrie Cranor [mailto:lorrie@cs.cmu.edu] 
>**Sent: 06 February 2004 17:15
>**To: Giles Hogben
>**Cc: 'public-p3p-spec'
>**Subject: Re: Art 10: Issue 4 - Security Measures
>**
>**
>**Looks good except
>**- one typo (specify and seals --> specify seals)
>**- maybe change "seals" to "seals or certification programs" 
>**to make it 
>**a little more clear what we are talking about.
>**
>**Lorrie
>**
>**
>**On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 03:12 AM, Giles Hogben wrote:
>**
>**>
>**> Here is the latest suggested modification and text for the Spec:
>**>
>**> Security issues:
>**> We suggest using the existing disputes attribute which is a
>**> placeholder for
>**> seals of any type (which can then be included in the 
>**browser's list of
>**> approved seals, along with a type attribute).
>**>
>**> Accompanying text for spec (Section 3.2.6, after independent
>**> organization...):
>**>
>**> Policy writers may also use this attribute to specify and seals
>**> related to
>**> the entity's information practices (including privacy and security 
>**> seals).
>**>
>**> -------------------------------------
>**> Giles Hogben
>**> European Commission Joint Research Centre
>**> Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen 
>**Cybersecurity 
>**> New technologies for Combatting Fraud Unit
>**>
>**> giles.hogben @ jrc.it
>**>
>**>
>**>
>**
>**

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 03:27:57 UTC