W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Citing your work on P3P

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:39:44 +0100
To: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
Cc: Ruchika Agrawal <ruchika@Stanford.EDU>, p3p-comments@w3.org, Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>, www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20011113113944.B546@localhost>
Dear Ruchika, 

When it comes to junkbuster's and EPIC's comments, please also
note, that those are based on older versions of P3P. Both never
updated their critics until now. It might be interesting to have
them re-read the specification.

The game around P3P is not only a bilateral one. There
are multiple players in the room. Most of Marc Rotenbergs critics
were directed against Lawrence Lessig's approach in Lessig's book
"code is law". In this book Lessig takes P3P as an example, that
by changing the internet-architecture, we could change the
underlying dynamics and thus write the code instead of a law. Or
a different law accompaigning the code... There is also the
political game about privacy regulation involved. The P3P Working
Group was mostly external to those battles. It was producing the
piece the others where arguing about. So if you do a pro-contra
approach, it is getting hard to sort out the object of the
dispute and the facts behind. The P3P Workging Groups tried
always to make clear, which goal they wanted to achieve. This was
not always heard in the discussions: See the P3P FAQ[1]. 

The best, that can happen happened: Lorrie, the Working Group
Chair has taken time to respond to you. So take as much benefit
out of it, as you can.

If you have questions about the european context, please don't
hesitate to ask me. (yet another different game around P3P)

  1. http://www.w3.org/P3P/p3pfaq.html

Best, 
-- 
Rigo Wenning            W3C/INRIA
Policy Analyst          Privacy Activity Lead
mail:rigo@w3.org        2004, Routes des Lucioles
http://www.w3.org/      F-06902 Sophia Antipolis

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 02:35:32PM -0500, Lorrie Cranor wrote:
> Ruchika,
> 
> Thank you for considering our comments.
> 
> > First, I intend to keep the title, "P3P - An Objective Overview".  Since I
> > am not expressing any of my personal opinions, I do consider it to be
> > objective.  I have spent four months dissecting P3P issues, and I searched
> > for the strongest arguments from both proponents and opponents with
> > respect to these issues.  I express no judgment on these arguments; I
> > simply present them.  My goal has been to be as objective as possible
> > during this entire time.  So, with all due respect, I intend to keep the
> > original title.
> 
> You did make a decision as to what you considered to be the
> strongest arguments on each side. This is in and of itself expressing
> a judgement. There were some arguments that you decided were
> not worth including, while you selected other arguments that
> I suggested to you were not appropriate for one reason or another.
> But that said, your choice of title is between you and your advisor.
> 
> If you are intersted in presenting the strongest arguments on both
> sides, I do suggest that you find an argument for both sides of each
> issue. There are a number of issues where you have ommitted
> arguments for one side or the other. For example, you don't have
> any pro-P3P implications. But a number of P3P proponents have
> written about positive implications of P3P -- for example
> http://www.cdt.org/privacy/pet/p3pprivacy.shtml
> 
> > Finally, I have been wracking my brain out trying to figure out the
> > "right" way to address your other points.  I have also been searching EPIC
> > and Junkbuster's websites to see if they agreed with any of your claims
> > about their statements and did not find anything.  So, to be as accurate,
> > fair and objective as possible, I hope to post your reply on the website
> > (with your permission of course), but only if EPIC and Junkbusters are
> > given a fair chance to address the issues you have raised with their
> > statements, in which case I would post their reply as well.
> >
> > With your permission, I would like to forward your email to EPIC and
> > Junkbuster's (I will CC you as well) to give them a chance to address the
> > issues you have raised.  If you are uncomfortable with me forwarding this
> > particular email, would you terribly mind sending me a version that I can
> > forward?
> 
> You may post our reply on your web site and forward it
> to EPIC and Junkbusters for comment. And that if they do
> comment I hope you will give us the opportunity to continue
> the dialogue with them and post both sides of the debate.
> 
> Lorrie
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 05:41:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:00 UTC