W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: thoughts for TPAC meetings...

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>
Message-ID: <05E9C67E-610C-4C07-A89B-60F064EE11AA@isoc.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:49:31 UTC