ISSUE-4: confidentiality of life cycle event data
confidentiality of life cycle event data
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- MMI Architecture
- Raised by:
- Michael Bodell
- Opened on:
- 2006-09-16
- Description:
- From the minutes of Sept 11, 2006 meeting
(http://www.w3.org/2006/09/11-multimodal-minutes.html) we had concerns about how
one could signal that some information should remain confidential.
The issue is say that a data event (or any event) could contain something like a
persons password, account number, social security number, or what not and that
an interaction manager might naively (but usefully in many other contexts) do
something like log the lifecycle events and their contents to some sort of
tracking log for later validation. The question became should there be an
attribute on the event data or some other way to tell if the data is
confidential and shouldn\'t be logged implicitly.
This issue also covers the logging of the existence of the event or what the
event name is, but in general data is clearly the most problematic example of
the issue. - Related Actions Items:
ACTION-61 on Moshe Yudkowsky to Ask Michael Bodell about ISSUE-4 and clarify the actual use case - due 2009-02-03, closedACTION-119 on Raj Tumuluri to Make proposal for generic solution to issue-4 - due 2010-07-05, closedACTION-120 on Michael Bodell to Send simple proposal about ISSUE-4 (just handle confidentiality) - due 2010-07-05, closed- Related emails:
- [all] f2f agenda (from ashimura@w3.org on 2010-11-01)
- [all] MMI agenda for October 25, 2010 and draft agenda for Lyon f2f (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-10-25)
- [all] MMI agenda October 18, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-10-15)
- [all] MMI minutes October 11, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-10-11)
- Re: [all] Issue-50 updated document (from raj@openstream.com on 2010-10-11)
- Re: [all] ISSUE 4 - language (from raj@openstream.com on 2010-10-11)
- [all] MMI agenda October 11, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-10-08)
- [all] MMI agenda October 4, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-10-01)
- [all] MMI agendas September 27-October 11, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-09-24)
- RE: [all] MMI agenda for Monday, September 20 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-09-17)
- Re: [all] MMI agenda for Monday, September 20 (from raj@openstream.com on 2010-09-17)
- [all] MMI agenda for Monday, September 20 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-09-17)
- [all] MMI minutes September 13, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-09-17)
- [all] MMI minutes July 26, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-07-26)
- Simple proposal for issue 4 (from mbodell@microsoft.com on 2010-07-10)
- [all] agenda MMI call July 12, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-07-09)
- [all] reminder, no call July 5, agendas July 12-September 20, 2010 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-07-02)
- [all] MMI agenda June 28, 2010 (from ashimura@w3.org on 2010-06-28)
- [all] reminder, no MMI call today and list of dates for presentations (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2010-06-21)
- [f2f] minutes Monday 14 June AM 2 (from paolo.baggia@loquendo.com on 2010-06-14)
- ISSUE-73 (EMO-4): <emotion> tag may need tag for definition of namespaces of custom vocabularies [EmotionML] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-11-02)
- Re: [emo] Issues in EmotionML (from ashimura@w3.org on 2009-10-31)
- [emo] Issues in EmotionML (from schroed@dfki.de on 2009-10-30)
- [all] MMI minutes June 8, 2009 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2009-06-08)
- RE: MMI Group wants your input on Issue 4 (from mbodell@microsoft.com on 2009-02-03)
- [all] MMi minutes October 16, 2006 (from dahl@conversational-technologies.com on 2006-10-16)
- ISSUE-4: confidentiality of life cycle event data [MMI Architecture] (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-09-16)
Related notes:
For next draft, if we haven\'t resolved this issue we\'ll put in green text saying
we are considering it.
We\'re leaning toward adding a boolean field, \"Confidential\" to events. We need
to decide what \"Confidential\" means. For example, does it mean that you can\'t
log the whole event, or you can\'t log just the data? Also there might be
something we could leverage from P3P (Platform for Privacy Preferences). Is
confidentiality more than just logging?
Also the use of the DCI might involve considerations of privacy.
16 Oct 2006, 00:00:00Also the use of the DCI might involve considerations of privacy.
16 Oct 2006, 00:00:00Also the use of the DCI might involve considerations of privacy.
16 Oct 2006, 00:00:00Text was added to WD 7, section 5.1.8
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mmi-arch-20100921/#ConfidentialField
This is also related to action-119 (http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/Group/track/actions/119), which was to create a more generic version of this.
added text to WD7, http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mmi-arch-20100921/#ConfidentialField
Deborah Dahl, 12 Oct 2010, 12:38:12Display change log