Re: a dry run for the privacy questionaire

I think that’s an interesting idea.  It would be good to see what it’s like if you answer the questionnaire “as a lawyer would” i.e. focus on the question actually asked, and answer that, even if you know that that misses some important information.

Then we can comment “if the question had been phrased differently, it would have brought out the following important information”, and “none of these questions caused us to talk about these aspects of our spec., which also have privacy implications”.

For me, these are rather important: “if we went with this questionnaire, what would we miss?”

thanks!

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:27 , Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> As a next step, I was thinking I could take the privacy questionaire I've been developing out for a test run on a proposed standard. 
> 
> IIRC there are two we're currently looking at:
> 
> [1] Media Capture Streams http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-mediacapture-streams-20150414
> [2] Presentation API http://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/
> 
> Anyone have feedback on which one would needs attention more? Ideally we'd both improve a standard and get some insight into what the questionaire is not.
> 
> (I'll edit the questions on the wiki based on my experiences and send a summary to the list)
> -- 
> /***********************************/
> Greg Norcie (norcie@cdt.org)
> Staff Technologist
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 Eye St NW Suite 1100
> Washington DC 20006
> (p) 202-637-9800
> PGP: http://norcie.com/pgp.txt
> 
> Fingerprint:  
> 73DF-6710-520F-83FE-03B5
> 8407-2D0E-ABC3-E1AE-21F1
> 
> /***********************************/

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 16:55:05 UTC