RE: Opening UP Notice: A structure to apply policy infrastructure Re: oo.apple.com

Mark - with regard to multi-layered notices & just in time notice concepts,
there is some history that may be useful in developing this thinking.

 

First, both of those concepts were supported by the privacy and data
protection commissioners of the world in a resolution I sponsored as host of
the 2003 International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners and which they adopted.  We took a very deliberate approach in
the development of the resolution, with a lot of consultation between
commissioners and with other stakeholders as well.  The resolution and the
background documentation are available on the conference website at
www.privacyconference2003.org/resolution.asp and includes topical references
available at the time.  Rigo Wenning was one of those who spoke at the
conference, calling in particular for such initiatives also to be machine
readable (P3P being the leading concept at the time). 

 

This work was subsequently developed further with the Centre for Information
Policy Leadership, leading to the Berlin Privacy Notices Memorandum and then
to "Ten Steps To Develop a Multilayered Privacy Notice".  To see this work,
to the Centre Resources page at
www.hunton.com/Resources/Sites/general.aspx?id=330 and scroll down towards
the end of the page to the heading called Multilayered Notices.  

 

Other resources from that work include the short article at
www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details/FileUpload265/1142/Multi-layered_privacy
_notices_mabrams.pdf. 

 

Another write up is by Eduardo Usteran at FFW:
www.ffw.com/publications/all/articles/multi-layered-privacy-notices.aspx. 

 

I subsequently advised the Australian Government Information Management
Office (AGIMO) on the application of multi-layered notices for
www.Australia.gov.au.  The ensuing short notice is at
http://australia.gov.au/about/privacy-statement with links to the full
notice at
http://australia.gov.au/about/privacy-statement/full-privacy-statement
(complete with a description of the history and links to the Berlin
Memorandum at the bottom of the page).  

 

A number of other Australian Government websites have since used these
statements as a template, for example
www.cockatooisland.gov.au/about/privacy.html;
www.heritageinfo.gov.au/about/privacy.html;
www.nrm.gov.au/about/privacy.html; and many more.  So has the government of
the Australian Capital Territory at www.act.gov.au/privacy. 

 

However, as noted in a recent Microsoft submission to a Committee of the
Senate of the Australian Parliament, "even this approach is now being
challenged with more recent research suggesting, for example, adopting
practices used in the food-labelling context could be a more effective way
to go.  Other research suggests that effective messaging is possible with
tools such as "visceral notice" and anthropomorphic cues."

 

The relevant references cited by Microsoft are:

 

..         "Standardizing Privacy Notices: An Online Study of the Nutrition
Label Approach", Cranor et al, CyLab, Carnegie Mellon University at
www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2009/tr-cylab09014.html 

..         "Redrawing the Route to Online Privacy", NY Times, 28 Feb 2010
www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/technology/internet/28unbox.html?_r=1 

 

An interesting topic of both cultural and human as well as technical and
technological dimensions!

 

Malcolm Crompton

 

Managing Director

Information Integrity Solutions Pty Ltd

ABN 78 107 611 898

 

T:  +61 407 014 450

 

MCrompton@iispartners.com  

www.iispartners.com <http://www.iispartners.com/>  

 

 

 

From: public-privacy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-privacy-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Lizar
Sent: Friday, 22 April 2011 10:05 PM
To: Rigo Wenning
Cc: public-privacy@w3.org
Subject: Re: Opening UP Notice: A structure to apply policy infrastructure
Re: oo.apple.com

 

 

Thanks Rigo, 

 

Great reference doc... And yes!  A standard that is simple to use..  Which
is not necessarily simple to design.  

 

An approach to reducing notices and increasing there meaning may be to
enhance existing notice practices to reduce the amount of notices pushed to
people by enabling the pulling of notices or/and notice components. Perhaps
a different approach and a broader perspective to a notice standard than P3P
taxonomy or Data Types in Dave's paper.  Clearly a common notice structure
for Enterprise notices is needed that can be structured so that the legal
components can be  measured and also be audited by individuals.  Producing
notice metrics based not only on counting the notice components but also
measuring the performance and veracity of Enterprise data practices.
Producing notice metrics and meta-data that can be called by context to
provide an aggregate understanding of information at anytime in an
individuals web session, so as to provide a structure for more dynamic and
granular control.  

 

For instance - Do-Not-Track --> an individual can click a -do-not-track
option and then pull a notice that the Enterprise has acquiesced to the
request not to be tracked.  This sort of system can be used  as a way to
structure public auditing and regulate participation. 

 

I imagine a system of this nature where instead of having to read policies,
notices can be layered so that a person can get an immediate visual/iconic
view of aggregate notices in context via notice meta-data.  (Perhaps by mode
of control or governance) An information structure that can be drill down
into the notice via layers, like priv-icons, then privacy labels, then
compact privacy policies etc.   

 

Unlike P3P and the administration of preferences, this suggestion is more
along the lines of measuring Enterprise compliance to law and legal
practices so as to facilitate interaction with those practices.  Describing
an infrastructure upon which something like P3P can be effective in
asserting preferences across.  Fundamentally suggesting Enterprise put all
of their open notices and signs online in a standard way as a matter of best
practice to extend the openness of Notices for digital use.  Raising the
minimum usability of a notice by placing it in a standard place online for
needed accessibility that is proportional to the practices of digital data
gathering.  This standard could include everything from building signs to
surveillance notices, to notices about privacy policies and the like.  This
way any applications, webservice, product, etc can call notice information
according to context.   Not only according to privacy preferences, which
people don't necessarily know or understand. (without the right tools and
common structure)

 

The theory being that a common Enterprise notice infrastructure that is
first accessible and available online can be measured and parsed to be
publicly accountable.  Delivering standard structure and metrics for the
performance of an Enterprise in contrast to their notice and designed to
develop uniform enforceability across  and with-in jurisdictions to data
protection regulation. (and privacy best practices) (GAPP
<http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/InformationTechnology/Resources/Privacy/
GenerallyAcceptedPrivacyPrinciples/Pages/default.aspx> )

 

Perhaps also providing a way to harmonize regulatory policy, and notice
taxonomies. Producing a path for accountability for any type of application
product and service especially privacy and informed consent applications.
Introducing the concept of a mechanism that can be called at anytime to
produce an aggregate visual view of information control for the web service
User that is layered. 

 

Hope this helps introducd the difference in approach and how this may
interact with P3P.

 

Best Regards, 

 

Mark

 

 

 

On 21 Apr 2011, at 20:22, Rigo Wenning wrote:





Dave Raggett had written down something along those lines for the Workshop
on 
Privacy and data usage control:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/raggett-fresh-take-on-p3p/

I was impressed by the potential of his approach, which would even work for 
DAP. Mainly he throws away the things in P3P that were too much overhead and

keeps the things of P3P we still use today. Even the PrimeLife project did
not 
need additional semantics. 

But one thing is a conviction after PrimeLife and XACML policies. If this 
would have to work on the web platform we are building, it must be dirt 
simple. PrimeLife's XACML approach works in heavily engineered intranets of 
large companies, but isn't ready for web scale [1]

If we would have some mechanism to trigger notifications, that would be a
big 
step forward. But I also follow concerns from others that we should not 
succumb to the creation of an avalanche of notifications. 

Producing simple solutions isn't simple at all!

Best, 

Rigo


On Thursday 21 April 2011 18:27:59 Mark Lizar wrote:



Yes.. It seems all conversations in this area come back to the FTC's

most fundamental (and first) principle ..  Notice

 

 so..

 

Is the question how to go about developing something like P3P but on a

broader scale for notification in general?  .

 

Malcolm's paper raises the issues:

 

"A better approach would be one where individuals have more 'real'

control.  This could be

by better means of providing notice or by setting stricter rules.

Another option would be to

support notice/use limitation approaches by providing better

mechanisms to assure

individuals that their personal information is under control (while

still allowing direct

control where this is practicable and where individuals wish to

exercise it) for example by:

.. providing for adaptable information handling standards that could

respond more

specifically to culture and context;

.. more robust transparency requirements for organisations;

.. compliance audits published in certain circumstances; and/or

.. risk/incentive frameworks to get information handling right."

 

Another approach may be to open notification of public notices to a

standard, and to open consent as a specific breed of bilateral notice

standard so that these are functions that are external from

Enterprise.  Right now these two functions are performed by each

enterprise and notice and consent are not systematically accessible.

It is clear that a standard is specifically needed for consent

status.   With out a dramatic increase in accessibility to notices it

is very difficult to develop solutions like Do-Not-Track that work or

provide clarity of control.  This is what I believe to be causing

notification to be such a burden, and as Apple is realising, causing

so much friction with Customers..

 

Rather than asserting some privacy principles are doing too much I

would suggest that for the first time we can look at enhancing the

static notification infrastructure that exists on and off line.

Suggesting something along the lines of a simple  digital/online

notice standard providing a common notice location and focusing on

structuring notices for accessibility first.

 

In response to the requirement for assurance metrics and audits ..

Include something like a common versioning process for logging notices

and Online notices can be used as the top layer of an audit log for

consent and control of information policy online.

 

The idea of a privacy risk rating system is great and I think would be

much easier to create with an open notice standard.  Although I think

it is a larger than privacy issue.