- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:28:42 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-xg-webid@w3.org XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
Melvin Carvalho wrote: > On 3 October 2012 15:45, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> can web-id be folded in to RWW, and mail auto forwarded to this list? > > > Nathan did you mean that the XG (now expired) folded into the public-webid > CG No :p but the XG folding in to webid cg it entails the same question :) >> >> 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<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/<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<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<http://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/staff/walden.html> >>>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/saag/current/**msg03614.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg03614.html> >>>> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Ben_Laurie<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Laurie> >>>> [4] http://bblfish.net/blog/2011/**05/25/<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<http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20100524_323> >>>> >>>> Social Web Architect >>>> http://bblfish.net/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 14:30:00 UTC