- From: Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:04:43 +0000
- To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
- CC: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Thanks Joe. These are very useful thoughts and timely given the meeting today. I agree. I do think there is value in having a more detailed PING privacy questionnaire that complements the TAG questionnaire. But, I also hope it will be useful for specification authors as well as PING privacy reviewers. Yes, Giri’s analysis of the Geofencing API using the TAG questionnaire is a good test of the draft questionnaire. Perhaps the Geofencing API is a good test case for both questionnaires. Christine > On 29 Oct 2015, at 10:39 pm, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> wrote: > > All of you in Sapporo are probably a few hours from getting up... > > Greg and I will miss hanging out with PING folks at TPAC and more > importantly spending quality time collectively getting our heads > around various lines of PING work. > > As for the PING privacy questionnaire, it seems like there are a few > distinct pieces in motion: > > 1. We need to decide at some point if any of the modifications we've > made to PING's questionnaire may be good to port back into the TAG > questionnaire. My sense is that the PING questionnaire is more useful > as a tool for PING members to use to evaluate specifications and that > the TAG questionnaire is more useful for spec authors to evaluate > their own work before engaging with TAG on specific elements. > > 2. Giri's work on the Geolocation API that he shared with PING gives > us a chance to work on improving the TAG questionnaire (pretty sure > that's what he used) does it not? > > 3. It seems like we need more experience using our own questionnaire > to see if this is a useful thing to continue working on at PING. > > 4. Both the discussions about the Permissions API and the implications > of Service Workers that Nick has been involved with makes me think > that we need to be prepared to engage when evaluating a specification > leads to deeper issues with other specifications, some of which may be > very near and dear and practically unchangeable. Either way, we should > have some of us look at both of those APIs more deeply and see if > there are ways to improve them or the implementations of them (and > specifically think of questions that we might ask ourselves while > evaluating specifications that might unearth issues that are bigger > than the current spec under evaluation). > > best, Joe > > -- > Joseph Lorenzo Hall > Chief Technologist > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 > Washington DC 20006-4011 > (p) 202-407-8825 > (f) 202-637-0968 > joe@cdt.org > PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key > fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 >
Received on Friday, 30 October 2015 01:05:18 UTC