|
Re: [IAB] Call for Comment: 'Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols'
2013-02-25 14:37:17
It is true that claims of ownership rights, whether over data or transmission
mediums, can have an affect on privacy. But as you say, I'm not sure what
concrete guidance we can give protocol developers and implementers about
considering ownership, since decisions about who owns what or who will be
claiming ownership over what are made essentially independently from any
decision about protocol design. Furthermore, I imagine that there is some
contention about presuming that recipients of personal data are the owners. I
would certainly be wary of including that presumption here, as it leads down
the slippery "rights vs. harms" slope pretty quickly, and we've managed to
avoid that altogether in this document so far.
Alissa
On Feb 25, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Hi, I would think both - ownership of the "things" and ownership of the
medium moving, transporting, storing the "things." Case in point: I can
write a protocol to move private data from point A to point B. My first
requirement is to make sure the design stipulates it stayed private,
especially at the receiving end. However, there is precedence where claims
were made for ownership of the storage regardless of how temporary it may
have been at the intermediary, a routed email for example. Someone leverage
a private email communications for their benefit by viewing the monitoring
intermediate passthru transport data. I'm not sure how such a document as
this prevent this. It would be more about ethics I suppose, but if a protocol
was to consider this, a designer may come up with ideas to prevent or
minimize it or leverage it even more.
On 2/25/2013 3:01 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Hector,
Just to clarify, do you mean ownership of personal data? Or something else?
Thanks,
Alissa
On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Hi,
Related to your question, if it wasn't done already, I think there is one
item to consider or define - $Owner(s) and/or $Ownership. (I don't see any
terms like owner, ownership in this document). The US ECPA has evolved with
additional new laws, some as the "Good Samaritan" provisions, relaxations
and also there has been new challenges and in my assessment it was
primarily based on long adhered ownership principles. Just like employers
enjoyed many US ECPA privacy exemptions, the Googles, Facebooks and other
3rd party service bureaus have also used "ownership" justify their
leveraging of user data - "its our network and equipment...."
I think the $intermediary term touches base, but i don't see it describe
nor the $initiator being related to the owner of things.
Ownership is very fundamental when we look at the natural ethical design
considerations, this should be one of the tenets of the document, in my
view. Recognized ownership has a very vital effect on what a protocol
may|can|should offer or not offer as to not open Pandora's box.
--
HLS
On 2/24/2013 2:23 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Hector,
On Feb 23, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Hi, with a quick review, and many comments and points, I think the one
single part that I would have some questions about is in the intro:
The guidance provided in
this document is generic and can be used to inform the design of any
protocol to be used anywhere in the world, without reference to
specific legal frameworks.
Is that a goal?
Yes, that's the goal.
As you know, the IETF develops specifications that are used on the
Internet and not just in a specific region. Trying to interpret national
laws and to provide region-by-region specific guidance did not seem
desirable to us.
Do you feel you have reached providing such "Global Common" guidelines
in the area of privacy?
Yes, I think so and this document follows the spirit of RFC 3552
"Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations". This
document is essentially the privacy version of what RFC 3552 is for
security. If you look at RFC 3552 you will also fail to find references to
regulation on security matters (even though they exist).
We did look at many documents that seemed relevant input, such as the
mentioned OECD document, and we spoke with data protection authorities and
solicited their input. Our job would have been easier if we could have
just re-used one of these documents listing the privacy principles.
Unfortunately, it turns out that these documents were written for a
different audience and that audience is supposed to have different
capabilities regarding the design and the deployment of their services. In
the IETF we do not have the same degree of freedom and impact and so we
developed these guidelines to the best of our capabilities.
How does it compare to US ECPA provisions for "User Expectations" which
has served as a global model for other jurisdictions?
The reason I ask is because I have been very sensitive to ethical design
and product liability issues in our product lines since 1986 following
the guidelines set forth by the US ECPA for:
- Thou shall not block/reject things without user knowledge,
- Thou shall not tamper/edit things especially when passing things
(relays),
- Thou shall kept private things private.
This was considered "Global" once upon a time. Now its arguable.
What is interesting for us to find out whether you believe that the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act has for additional privacy aspects
we need to address in the document.
It is not our goal to interpret specific regulatory documents (even though
it is interesting). This is the (well-paid) job of many lawyers.
Ciao
Hannes
--
HLS
On 2/23/2013 12:10 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi SM,
Thanks for your comments. Some responses are inline.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:29 PM, SM wrote:
At 14:30 16-01-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 'Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols'.
The document is being considered for publication as an Informational
RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations
In Section 1:
'With regard to data, often it is a concept applied to
"personal data," information relating to an identified or
identifiable individual.'
I suggest rewriting the above sentence.
The authors have re-written that sentence several times and in different
ways already. Do you have a specific suggestion about how to improve it?
"Many sets of privacy principles and privacy design frameworks have
been
developed in different forums over the years."
There is also some work in the APEC region (see
http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=390
(payware)).
As far as I know the APEC framework is one of many frameworks (none of
which we cite since there are so many) based on the OECD-style FIPs. Is
that incorrect?
As a nit, the draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-27 reference should be RFC 6772.
Fixed.
I read some of the previous versions of this draft. The Abstract
Section describes the document as providing guidance for developing
privacy considerations for inclusion in protocol specifications. I
found the draft difficult to digest. I suggest simplifying the draft
to make the guidance accessible to the target audience.
I'm not quite sure what you are recommending here, but we have had
conversations in the IAB privacy program about moving the guidance part
up, or otherwise trying to make the focus on the guidance piece more
prominent. The difficulty is that there is a broad range in the extent
to which potential readers are familiar with privacy concepts, so
jumping straight into the guidance would not be appropriate for some
portion of the audience. If you have concrete suggestions for how to
simplify, those would be helpful.
One of the issues nowadays is what to do about intermediaries. If I am
not mistaken RFC 3238 was one of the first documents to tackle that
question from a privacy perspective. There have been a few proposals
to introduce intermediaries as part of the architecture (I am using the
word is used loosely). It is easy to argue for intermediaries based on
use cases. There was a case recently where the users only became aware
that they have signed up for using an intermediary through the EULA.
The draft introduces the concept of secondary use (Section 4.2.3).
Strictly speaking, it is a disclosure (Section 4.2.4).
Not all secondary uses involve disclosure (such as the example given in
4.2.3). I have added a sentence to clarify this, however:
"Secondary use encompasses any use of data, including disclosure."
The draft mentions consent in several places. The authors are likely
aware that consent was a hot topic for DNT. It's easier to start with
something that is easy for the average person to understand and build
from there. Section 7.2 could more about consent instead of user
participation or control.
We tried to think of a case where a consent mechanism was actually
developed in the IETF, but as a general matter consent mechanisms tend
to be out of scope, which is why we focus more on user controls (which
still show up rarely but do show up).
Thanks,
Alissa
Regards,
-sm
|
|