- From: Tara Whalen <tjwhalen@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 23:16:14 -0700
- To: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+T70Ah5z-5aEz4NqY4sLyswi-5gAVW2cXjjEbsTyXKEggSsPA@mail.gmail.com>
PING – informal chairs’ summary – 26 May 2016 Thank you to Léonie Watson (Web Platform Working Group) and Eric Stephan (Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group) for joining our call. Our next call will be on 23 June 2016 at the usual time. * Privacy review: HTML5.1 The HTML 5.1 specification [1] has moved to Candidate Recommendation (as of 21 June). Many of the changes have involved “clean up” rather than the introduction of new features; nonetheless, the authors welcome a review for any privacy concerns arising from this new version. The discussion highlighted the utility of the Privacy Questionnaire for performing the reviews; there was a call for more reviewers to take a look at the document, and to bring any privacy issues that arise to PING for further discussion. * Privacy review: Data on the Web Best Practices The Data on the Web Best Practices document [2] is close to being on the Recommendation Track after quite a lot of activity in the WG. The goal of this document is to provide guidance for publishing open data on the web: ensuring it is discoverable, accessible, and protected as necessary. The WG has been using the Privacy Questionnaire to review their Best Practices, and created an initial draft of some of their thoughts. The WG note that publishers may have different policies they need to apply, so it might not be possible to craft a universal policy. Some privacy issues may be in the hands of the publisher, but some rely on other standards, such as data provenance (sharing how data originated and was disseminated). The discussion highlighted the concerns of open data sharing and the potential for unintended disclosures; it was suggested that the Open Data Policy Guidelines might be a helpful reference. Also, given some of the controversy over research performed using accessible yet sensitive data (e.g., OkCupid), there may need to be further exploration of what is considered “public” and what is “private.” The WG welcomes further comments on any privacy-related issues that they may have missed in their documentation. * Privacy Questionnaire Greg Norcie has been doing a great deal of work on this questionnaire [3]; PING very much appreciates the work and would like to ensure it advances and is shared with other groups. One issue that arose in discussion is whether the questions could be more qualitative, so that respondents could provide more thoughtful, detailed answers -- for example, explaining what type of encryption was being used, not simply that *some* form of encryption is in place. We will consider how this questionnaire might be turned into a Group Note, and continue to make improvements to it. Christine and Tara [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/ [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page [3] http://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 06:16:42 UTC