- From: Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:09:00 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-privacy@w3.org mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Hello Karl, Thanks for the question. I believe Henry brought this issue to the public-privacy email list (used by PING), and that you suggested reducing the distribution list to that address. PING's mission is to improve the support of privacy in Web standards by monitoring ongoing privacy issues that affect the Web, investigating potential areas for new privacy work, and providing guidelines and advice for addressing privacy in standards development. In other words, when it comes to privacy-related issues, we are here to help. Since the issue has been brought to PING mid-discussion, it seemed worthwhile to provide a little time in one of our calls to quickly bring everyone up to speed with what has been discussed so that PING can provide some useful input. (If we can do this easily via email, all the better.) (Apologies to Henry, because I am grossly oversimplifying and may have missed your point.) As I understand it, Henry wishes to make a case for linkability (of identities) to improve "privacy". (I put "privacy" in quotes because it appears to me that Henry's definition is really more akin to a definition of "confidentiality".) Regards, Christine On Oct 15, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > > Le 15 oct. 2012 à 02:57, Christine Runnegar a écrit : >> As this issue has migrated to the public-privacy email list, would you like us to add it to the agenda for a PING call? > > I'm not part of PING [1]. I'm unlikely to participate but please go ahead. Just by curiosity, what would be the goal of such a call? > > > [1]: http://www.w3.org/2011/07/privacy-ig-charter.html > > -- > Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ > Developer Relations, Opera Software >
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 13:09:33 UTC