- From: Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:42:57 +0100
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-privacy@w3.org
On 21 Apr 2011, at 12:56, Karl Dubost wrote: > Mark, > > a few questions to better understand what you are suggesting. > > Le 21 avr. 2011 à 07:29, Mark Lizar a écrit : >> At this time, all of the policies and notices are ad-hoc, un- >> standardised which means that are not useful in comparison from >> service to service. > > How would you make explicit the elements of the policy? Elements of a policy are already explicit it data protection legislation globally. In fact Notice is the only consistent regulation across all major regulating jurisdiction. These elements are further defined in each regulation but almost always include basic legally required notice elements like; purpose specification, use limitation, contact information, third parties that interact with the limited use of the information etc. > What are the differences in your suggestion from P3P? > http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P11/#Introduction P3P was designed to make machine readable privacy preferences. This is about discovering and finding access to notices that are already legally required to be as open as possible to compare with something like privacy preferences. The reason I believe P3P struggled is that there is a lack of standard notices for P3P to hook into. > >> In fact without a standard in notice, there is no simple way for >> people to see what kind of control they have over information when >> interacting online. > > How would you like the policies (legalese) to be changed as controls > (actions/preferences)? Well, for example a simple standard may just have a file with fields to accommodate links to policy components. A notices meta data could provide transparency over its components, Links can provide access in a standard way to layers of policy. > >> A standard in notice would provide a way for notice to be viewed on >> aggregate for a clear and dynamic picture of policy. > > There are at least 4 parts it seems in what you are mentioning > > 1. The description of the policy (markup) > 2. The notification of changes (protocol) > 3. Knowing what has changed See http://www.goodiff.org/ > 4. The visualization of policies and their changes (design/UX) > See the work http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/privacy-icons/ > 5. Access to bits of the policy (api) Perhaps P3P, POWDER, XACML, ORDL, ACAP, RIF, etc can be used easily with a simple standard to unite such efforts? . > > If I understood what you are describing, what kind of issues would > it solve? Well, this potentially solve many issues. The primary focus should be accessibility and internationalisation of notice information, e.g. the ability for a device to automatically parse location based notices to provide notice information in different formats or languages. Although, I imaging that a simple standard would have an immense impact on privacy, trust, security and economic performance of service information that Enterprise try to deliver. > > > > -- > Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ > Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software >
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 12:52:20 UTC