Re: Geofencing and privacy

Joe, it is worth buying and reading the two documents. The definition 
for PII is based on the European perspective on identifiability.

Joseph Lorenzo Hall schreef op 2015-06-25 15:48:
> Is that a publicly-available ISO standard? If not, we're likely to
> ignore it if we have to pay to look at it. best, Joe
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Ambarish S Natu
> <ambarish.natu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> Please excuse me, if i am being a bit naive here in my comments. 
>> ISO/IEC
>> 29100 and ISO/IEC 29101 specify a privacy framework/architecture for 
>> ICT
>> systems, which I believe encompasses the work of the W3. Has W3 
>> thought
>> about addressing these aspects of PII as their design principles. I do 
>> not
>> see a normative reference to this work done by ISO/IEC.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Ambarish
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:48 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > On Jun 24, 2015, at 7:35 , Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all.
>>> >
>>> > The First Public Working Draft of Geofencing API has been published by
>>> > the Geolocation WG:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-geofencing-20150604/
>>> >
>>> > You will see that there is still work to be done on the privacy and
>>> > security considerations section.
>>> >
>>> > So, here is an opportunity to provide some early guidance.
>>> 
>>> I don’t want to sound excessively negative, but I have a hard time
>>> believing you can design any aspect of this without solving how you 
>>> are
>>> going to handle the very hard privacy considerations.  The mechanics 
>>> of the
>>> design seem a lot simpler, and are likely to be heavily affected.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> David Singer
>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Ambarish S Natu
>> www.angelfire.com/ak4/ambarishnatuatunsw/1_page.htm