- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:50:46 +0200
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: "public-xg-webid@w3.org XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <690FEFA7-C123-4C66-9F7A-F0E05816E9E2@bblfish.net>
On 3 Oct 2012, at 15:45, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > can web-id be folded in to RWW, and mail auto forwarded to this list? I am sure this can be done, but I'd rather the webid & rww lists be separate, because we still have technical issues on the webid spec to work with. I would not mind if public-webid be forwarded to public-xg-webid on the other hand. public-xg-webid still can do some magic, like update the WebID bug database, which is a feature I'd like not to loose. Henry > Henry Story wrote: >> Since our community is a bit split on the mailing list still, I thought I's forward this to the >> XG list. Begin forwarded message: >>> Resent-From: public-webid@w3.org >>> From: "Dr Ian Walden" <i.n.walden@qmul.ac.uk> >>> Subject: RE: Browser UI, privacy, and EU law >>> Date: 1 October 2012 13:36:05 CEST >>> To: "'Henry Story'" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <public-webid@w3.org>, "'Ben Laurie'" <benl@google.com> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The answer is, of course, it depends! >>> >>> The relevant legislative measure, Directive 02/58/EC, as amended in 2009, >>> states the following, at article 5(3): >>> >>> "Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the >>> gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal >>> equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that >>> the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having >>> been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance >>> with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the >>> processing. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for >>> the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication >>> over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in >>> order for the provider of an information society service explicitly >>> requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service." >>> >>> The references to 'consent' and 'clear and comprehensive information' >>> suggest that a user should be informed what identity he is giving to a web >>> site, since meaningful consent cannot be given unless the individual knows >>> what personal data is being disclosed. However, the last sentence of the >>> article is a get-out provision for data controllers, which means that >>> consent is not required in all circumstances. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> Professor Ian Walden >>> Professor of Information and Communications Law >>> Head, Institute of Computer and Communications Law >>> >>> Centre for Commercial Law Studies >>> Queen Mary, University of London >>> 67-69 Lincoln's Inn Fields >>> London WC2A 3JB >>> >>> Tel: +44-(0)20-7882-8086 >>> Mobile: +44-(0)7968-612-581 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Henry Story [mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net] Sent: 27 September 2012 14:29 >>> To: Ian Walden; public-webid@w3.org; Ben Laurie >>> Subject: Browser UI, privacy, and EU law >>> >>> Let me introduce Ian Walden, Professor of Information and Communication Law >>> [1], who gave perhaps one of the most entertaining presentations at IETF 83 >>> at the behest of the Security Area Advisory Group [2] in Paris earlier this >>> year on the effect of new EU legislation on software development relating to >>> privacy. >>> It has been a long time since then, and I was not expecting such a talk, so >>> I did not take notes. But I am pretty sure this has some relevance to the >>> topic at hand here. >>> >>> What I would like to know is if we can start arguing from a legal >>> perspective now for enhancements to user interfaces in browsers to help the >>> user see what identity (s)he is showing to a web site. I am asking this >>> because in a discussion with Ben Laurie, who works as security specialist at >>> Google among many other things [3], Ben seemed to think there was no >>> requirement in EU law for this. But my take from the talk at IETF in Paris >>> was quite the opposite, or at the very least that things were about to >>> seriously change. >>> >>> So let me summarise the UI improvement that I ( and others ) have been >>> arguing for. Client side certificates - with WebID - allows one to >>> authenticate ( if one desires to ) to a number of web sites in one click. >>> This is shown in the short video "WebID & Browsers" [4]. As I point out at >>> the end of the video current browsers allow one to log into different sites >>> with a client certificate but: >>> >>> 1. Fail to make it obvious at all times that one is logged in, or under >>> what identity >>> >>> So, for example if in Safari one has chosen an identity to log in one >>> cannot change it, or even ever see that this is the identity/certificate one >>> has chosen. >>> All the other browsers ask one again on accessing a web site, but still >>> don't show the identity used. >>> 2. Don't make it easy to logout >>> >>> There is a bit of javascript that works on Netscape to log out, but the >>> server must present that option. In my view the user should be in control. >>> One has to close the whole browser to change identity. >>> ( Safari does not allow one to logout at all, ever! ) >>> >>> 3. Don't make it obvious when one is anonymous >>> >>> Aza Raskin a designer at Mozilla presented a design that in my view would >>> solve this and user interaction problems very neatly and put the user in >>> control of his identity >>> >>> http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/identity-in-the-browser-firefox/ >>> >>> Aza did not apply it to https client authentication (TLS) but the design >>> would clearly work just as well there too. I opened a bug report on Chrome >>> for something like this to be implemented >>> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=29784 >>> >>> And similarly to other open source and closed source browsers. >>> >>> So the WebID protocol is here to try to create a global distributed social >>> network so that we can have more privacy by working in distributed social >>> networks [5] and not have to all interact on one huge mega-server (or at >>> least allow people to not have to do that without suffering a large penalty) >>> We can get going as is now, but we would like the browsers to put the user >>> more in control of his identity. >>> So I was wondering if this is now a legal requirement :-) >>> >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/staff/walden.html >>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg03614.html >>> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Laurie >>> [4] http://bblfish.net/blog/2011/05/25/ >>> [5] I have a three minute interview at Oxford internet institute by Prof >>> William Dutton that covers this >>> http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20100524_323 >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 13:51:24 UTC