Re: Draft: Privacy Workshop Report

I think perhaps we also made the point that the icons 'rest' on the presumption that they highlight 'unusual' departures from 'normal' (since an icon that always appears, or never appears, doesn't convey much).

The icons seemed to be a third step on the road:
a) define nomenclature, background terms, and so on, so privacy policy write-ups can avoid repeating 'what is a cookie' and so on, every time (and use common terms)
b) define some baseline policy-fragments, so that privacy policies can say (for example) 'with respect to third-parties, we use the W3C Generous-Disclosure framework' 
c) then, the icons kick in 'for data retention, we retain longer than the W3C Minimum Retention framework' (and hence we get an advisory icon displayed)

Did this get captured?

On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:14 , Sören Preibusch wrote:

> We seemed to have some consensus that, for instance, the use of operating
> system-wide symbols to indicate that geo-location is active is preferable to
> having each application (browser, ...) use their own iconography.
> I would agree there is a chance for icons failing for the same reasons that
> P3P failed and I think there were more people nodding their heads re this
> statement.
> Sören
> -----Original Message-----
> • I'm not sure what "and that, privacy controls should be kept as close to
> the mobile device as possible" intends to capture.
> • Deirdre's remark that the icons would fail for the same reason as P3P did
> was, I thought, somewhat tempered in the discussion that followed the
> presentations.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 16:23:24 UTC