- From: Greg Norcie <gnorcie@cdt.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:21:13 -0400
- To: "Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMJgV7YvOQw9JL44wujwYyRyZPUmmgMbqAA6G=11WgNToMW+6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Lukasz, Thanks for reaching out, we really appreciate it. We're happy to help. Do you have a timeline for when you'll need comments by? /********************************************/ Greg Norcie (norcie@cdt.org) Staff Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology District of Columbia office (p) 202-637-9800 PGP: http://norcie.com/pgp.txt *CDT's Annual Dinner (Tech Prom) is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out!learn more at https://cdt.org/annual-dinner <https://cdt.org/annual-dinner>* /*******************************************/ On Tue, 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. > > 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 Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:22:05 UTC