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

Proposed feedback for TAG on their security questionnaire + PING questionnaire feedback

From: Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:19:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMJgV7bE3Ab3+Y8o5HhYydv2icUi7+Nm80wYd0fyducxNHNJHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Hi all,

One of my main goals for the New Year will be moving the PING questionnaire
[1] forward. in order to achieve this goal, my thinking was that our
questionnaire will supplement (not replace) the existing TAG questionnaire

My vision was that the TAG version would include a subset of the PING
questions, hitting on a subset of high impact questions, whereas the PING
questionnaire would eventually become a larger resource for spec developers
looking to do a deep dive, as well as a resource to those new to PING who
want to help out.

Giri's email on 10/19 was extremely valuable and gave some great insight
into where the TAG's questionnaire, as well as prompting me to think a lot
about how our own questions could be improved.

I am going to list out some proposed changes to both below, and I'd love to
hear thoughts from the rest of PING. My goal was that we would send
feedback the Tuesday after American Thanksgiving (12/1).

Annyways moving on:

*proposed TAG questionnaire changes:*

   1. For questions 3.1--3.13 and , we should change the wording to "How
   does" This forces spec authors to show their work rather than answer simply
   "yes" or "no".
   - If they're unsure about what the question wants (which will happen
      often until the Qs move out of alpha) they can say why they
think they are
      meeting expectations
   2. Questions 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, and 3.12 lack an explanation. Each of these
   should have an explanation.
   - (I'd be happy to take first stabs)
      3. Question 3.4 could be reworded as ""Does this specification
   increase users’ fingerprintability?" so that the threat model is clearer to
   someone without a security/privacy background
   4. Question 3.13 should be reworded so that someone without a security
   background can answer it without reading
   5. Q3.15 could be made clearer - text could be added explaining WHY
   persisting data is problematic. (tracking + simple shenanigans like filling
   someone's HD with junk data)

*proposed PING questionnaire changes:*
(Note: this is a little more high level, apologies for the lack of specific
action items):

   1. The "PII" vs "personally derived data" debate (basically, US govt vs
   EU govt view) is going to make question 3 (“Does this specification
   generate personally derived data, and if so how will that data be
   handled?”) on the PING questionnaire particularly troublesome. I don’t have
   a good answer on how to reword it, but simply being mindful it will be a
   hot debate is a good first step. I'd love to have a discussion on how we
   can craft something that satisfies both sides of the pond.
   2. Expanding on the above point: Should our questionnaire discuss how
   the data is handled, or should PING limit ourselves to merely the
   collection, transmission, and processing of the data?

   - Do we want to get into issues such as "Is the data encrypted once it
      is received by the website" or "What does the website do with
the data once
      it is received?"
      - Would that be out of scope for PING? If so maybe we should state so
      explicitly to help avoid needless debates.)

[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy_and_security_questionnaire
[2] https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/


*Greg Norcie (norcie@cdt.org <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


Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 17:20:39 UTC

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