W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Privacy report on sensors, for generic sensors API.

From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 19:57:46 -0400
Cc: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8005C3A0-B544-4F6E-A679-93C70FECA556@fjhirsch.com>
To: "Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
much thanks.  I have a few comments re your document:

it is deliberate not to use RFC 2119 language in the security and privacy considerations since they are non-normative. Implementers should heed advice and take responsibility but they also have to be able to make tradeoffs considering the context (business and otherwise). Privacy is not solely a technical problem, part of the reason for this.

it might be useful to understand how much effort is needed to do behavioral analysis; (the security analogy is that of whether you are dealing with script-kiddies vs the 'Andromedan' (1) government agencies')

Permissions are hard when considered with usability, new information/ideas in this area might be worth discussing more

also comment inline below

much thanks for this work

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch


(1) 'Thinking Security' reference

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 5:49 AM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all!
> I am working on a sensors privacy (impact, risk, ...) assessment for a while now. And I think now it has little sense to withhold it for any longer, as most of the work I did some time ago, anyway. 
> It is primarily intended for Devis APIs WG (DAP), with whom I have the pleasure to work on the privacy aspects of sensors API.
> I invite you to take a look on the document [1]. I hope it will be useful, and I primarily hope this can be an appropriate starting input in privacy considerations of sensors.
> Often, as indicated in the PDF report, even perhaps far-fetched scenarios are considered. Same for cross-device risks, where plausible scenario could be pointed to.
> As advised in private correspondence with (and by), Tobie Langel (DAP), it would be good if specific pull(s) request(s) follow. I'll look into that next.
> Also of note. It is not included in the PDF (should it?), but I believe it is worthy to require a secure (i.e. TLS) connection for having access to sensors ('secure contexts') - all of them, generically and just like that. I can't imagine a scenario where this could cause any issues, apart from the need to set up a TLS, that is.

will all sensors have the resources/capability/cost-performance to perform TLS?

> I also highlight my view and want to ask a question. Can W3C give guidance/recommendation/note regarding the transparency UIs (sometimes called "privacy user interface")? A method for a straight-forward user-verification of: what/how was being used, how frequent, etc. 
> Please, enjoy ;-)
> Best regards
> Lukasz Olejnik
> [1] http://lukaszolejnik.com/SensorsPrivacyReport.pdf
Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 23:58:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:49:32 UTC