- From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:26:10 -0500
- To: Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>
- Cc: "fd@w3.org" <fd@w3.org>, "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>, Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
We will be there! On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for reaching out again Francois. If it would be helpful, we could add this item to our agenda for the call on 3 December 2015 UTC 17. > > Christine > >> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:10 pm, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> wrote: >> >> Francois, there is no formal end state for our privacy reviews since >> this is a volunteer effort and one that is evolving (and PING folks >> sort of drift in and out of lines of work). Perhaps we could set a >> time for you and someone directly involved in the spec or >> implementations to sit down with Greg Norcie who did the review? It >> could be that walking through some of the aspects of our questionnaire >> and the responses could 1) expose places that maybe we had >> misunderstandings; or 2) places where the spec could be a bit more >> clear for reviewers (e.g., a form of non-implementing audience for the >> specification). >> >> best, Joe >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: >>> Hello Privacy group, >>> >>> I'm not clear as to the status of the privacy review of the Presentation API specification. I see that there has been an initial review led by Greg [1] which was also used to fine-tune the privacy questionnaire, and then a call for volunteers to finalize the review [2], although I did not find something else in the mailing-list. Could you clarify the current status? >>> >>> The Second Screen Working Group had its F2F at TPAC and went over the review at [1]. It seems very focused on audio/video, and we wonder whether that is intended. The Presentation API has two modes of operation: >>> - the 1UA case where a user agent renders the content at the requested URL locally and indeed streams the resulting audio/video to the second screen >>> - the 2UA case where a user agent connects with another user agents to ask it to render the content at the requested URL. No audio/video streaming occurs in that case, but a communication channel gets established between the two user agents. >>> >>> I think the group's idea is to see the 1UA case along the lines of: the second screen is part of the "computer" where the user agent runs, which controls the audio/video link in the same vein as it controls the usual "link" with the main display over some internal bus or a VGA/HDMI/Miracast connection. Is the potential privacy concern around the fact that the audio/video stream could be intercepted, or that the second screen could perhaps be considered as a separate computer that could record the streams? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Francois, >>> W3C Staff Contact, >>> Second Screen Working Group >>> >>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0120.html >>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0138.html >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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 Wednesday, 11 November 2015 16:26:58 UTC