IRC log of privacy on 2006-10-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:02:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #privacy
07:02:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-irc
07:03:04 [tlr]
Meeting: Languages for Privacy Policy Negotiation and Semantics-Driven Enforcement
07:03:14 [tlr]
Chair: Guenther Karjoth, Danny Weitzner
07:05:33 [rigo]
Marit will take minutes and send them to rigo and tlr
07:07:19 [tlr]
Topic: Patricia Charlton, Jonathan Teh, Supporting the users’ privacy preferences when sharing personal content
07:07:27 [tlr]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/15-charlton-preferences.pdf
07:10:05 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
07:20:14 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
07:28:23 [Giles]
Giles has joined #privacy
07:29:05 [rigo]
?? University of Trento
07:32:27 [tlr]
Topic: Giles Hogben, An open assertion and evidence exchange and query language – requirements and abstract syntax
07:32:33 [tlr]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/14-hogben-assertion-and-evidence.pdf
07:35:08 [rigo]
s/??/Pirelli Giuliano/
07:40:08 [tlr]
rrsagent, please make this record public
07:54:10 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
07:59:45 [tlr]
Topics: Jan Camenisch, Thomas Groß, Dieter Sommer, A General Certification Framework with Applications to Privacy-Enhancing Certificate Infrastructures
07:59:51 [tlr]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/09-camenisch-credentials.pdf
08:41:20 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
08:42:15 [guenter]
guenter has joined #privacy
08:45:13 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
08:45:20 [guenter]
guenter has joined #privacy
09:02:50 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
09:03:24 [rigo]
ScribeNick: rigo
09:03:46 [tlr]
Topic: Makoto Hatakeyama, Hidehito Gomi, Privacy Policy Negotiation Framework for Attribute Exchange
09:03:51 [tlr]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/22-hatakeyama-attribute-exchange.pdf
09:04:07 [rigo]
ScribeNick: jschallaboeck
09:04:49 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
09:07:48 [jschallaboeck]
me says will scribe
09:10:58 [jschallaboeck]
Topic: Makoto Hatakeyama, Hidehito Gomi, Privacy Policy Negotiation Framework for Attribute Exchange
09:11:32 [jschallaboeck]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/22-hatakeyama-attribute-exchange.pdf
09:11:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html tlr
09:12:34 [tlr]
s/me says will scribe//
09:12:44 [Giles]
Giles has joined #privacy
09:18:33 [jschallaboeck]
soeren: privacy policy comparison seems to be key element of approach, provide tech details
09:18:59 [jschallaboeck]
our approach is only protocol, do not work about policy comparison...
09:19:12 [tlr]
s/our approach/makoto: our approach/
09:19:14 [jschallaboeck]
... use p3p, compare p3p policies
09:20:58 [jschallaboeck]
Rigo: There was a project from nnda around p3p, that use hashed poicies, that were registered wit m.t....
09:21:08 [tlr]
s/m.t/MITI/
09:21:16 [jschallaboeck]
... are you using the findings of this project?
09:21:21 [jschallaboeck]
Mokoto: no, not aware
09:21:35 [tlr]
s/Mokoto/Makoto/
09:21:44 [jschallaboeck]
??2: have to consider policy is not the contract...
09:21:56 [tlr]
s/??2/LFPau/
09:22:19 [jschallaboeck]
you cannot define fixed sets, they are oftn changed in the couse of negotiation.
09:22:50 [jschallaboeck]
Mokoto: Framework works for mobile carriers.
09:22:55 [tlr]
s/Mokoto/Makoto/
09:24:31 [jschallaboeck]
??3:in us and european consumer protection laws the question is, what is the consumer reasonably believed
09:24:43 [tlr]
s/??3/Danny/
09:25:31 [jschallaboeck]
AnneAnderson: Are your policies specific to a particular set, do you have different policies for each p3p-option?
09:25:57 [jschallaboeck]
Mokoto:It is a complete set of p3p-options.
09:26:16 [tlr]
Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne, Andrew Newton, Jon Peterson, The IETF Geopriv and Presence Architecture Focusing on Location Privacy
09:26:20 [tlr]
s/Mokoto/Makoto/g
09:26:27 [tlr]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/26-tschofenig-geopriv.pdf
09:26:42 [jschallaboeck]
Topic: Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne, Andrew Newton, Jon Peterson, The IETF Geopriv and Presence Architecture Focusing on Location Privacy
09:27:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html tlr
09:28:40 [tlr]
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/26-tschofenig-geopriv.pdf
09:43:39 [Giles]
Giles has joined #privacy
09:52:25 [jschallaboeck]
??1: what about access control. the mobile terminal will notify terminal...
09:52:33 [tlr]
s/??1/ErnestoDamiani/
09:52:49 [jschallaboeck]
... access control is the other way around, you need to pose conditions...
09:52:58 [jschallaboeck]
... how does this fit?
09:53:23 [jschallaboeck]
Hannes: we sould like to see the end user participate, more of a religious question...
09:53:36 [tlr]
s/sould/should7
09:53:37 [tlr]
s/sould/should/
09:53:44 [jschallaboeck]
... it would be possible to have the network do the work as well...
09:53:45 [tlr]
s#s/sould/should7##
09:54:50 [jschallaboeck]
??2:why did you not refer to idlf-work?
09:54:57 [tlr]
s/??2/LFPau/
09:55:10 [jschallaboeck]
Hannes: I do not think oma is any simpler...
09:55:28 [jschallaboeck]
we tried to talk to them, but the formats are incompatible...
09:55:43 [jschallaboeck]
... look at the standarts, we use sip...
09:56:14 [jschallaboeck]
... their expertise is strong, but there were not a lot of contributions in an ip-based environmet.
09:57:36 [tlr]
Topic: Lalana Kagal, Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, Daniel Weitzner, Promoting Interoperability between Heterogeneous Policy Domains
09:57:44 [tlr]
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2006/Talks/1017-w3cws-rein/
10:14:02 [jschallaboeck]
giles: how do you trust the groups (eg. the girlscouts in the example)
10:14:37 [jschallaboeck]
Danny: you write the rule, where you specify who to trust. there is no absolute measure of who to trust.
10:16:11 [jschallaboeck]
... with reard to authentication, we have put that out of scope, but we can refer to the existing ones, this is not where our problem is
10:16:42 [jschallaboeck]
... you could always specify, a rule has to be signed by p3p.
10:18:03 [jschallaboeck]
??1: can you also make assertions about devices as opposed to social networks?
10:18:13 [tlr]
s/??1/Patricia/
10:18:19 [jschallaboeck]
Danny: yes.
10:19:29 [jschallaboeck]
... it is an enormous hci-challenge.
10:23:36 [jschallaboeck]
Danny: we had to develop a language for privacy rules...
10:24:00 [jschallaboeck]
... because we had to transmit possible changes to the presence server...
10:24:48 [jschallaboeck]
... (on o.m.a.) you have to be very specific, with some of the items in the picture there is a lot of discussions of not using it...
10:25:02 [tlr]
s/Danny/Hannes/
10:25:18 [rigo]
HT: presence work is often used as is...
10:25:27 [jschallaboeck]
... the difficulties show up, eg. should the endhost really see location.
10:25:39 [rigo]
...privacy is seen different than OMA and 3GPP
10:26:27 [rigo]
Johan: in OMA they are developing a complete different model, and there is some work need to re-converge
10:27:08 [jschallaboeck]
Hannes: There are a number of folks who use O.M.A. in a different way.
10:27:27 [jschallaboeck]
Johann: You will have to adress this.
10:28:33 [rigo]
Danny: It will be hard to have a universally accepted policy framework, not obvious and have to pay attention to fragmentation
10:28:33 [jschallaboeck]
Danny: it is only to observe that different groups have different sets of requirements.
10:30:09 [jschallaboeck]
Danny: We would like to use everything we can from p3p...
10:30:28 [jschallaboeck]
... it would be good if w3c would contribute to ietf.
10:31:41 [jschallaboeck]
tlr: proposes to continue this discussion over lunch.
10:33:17 [jschallaboeck]
rigo: as a warning: we are talking two paradigms...
10:34:08 [jschallaboeck]
... service offering services ./. preferences on user side.
10:34:41 [rigo]
policies take different sematics than preferences that can be sent forward
10:34:41 [jschallaboeck]
Giles: Also look at the difference between protocol and semantics.
10:35:07 [jschallaboeck]
Hannes: I can see how Rigos comment would fit into a sip environment...
10:35:39 [jschallaboeck]
... usually you do not talk to a presence you do not know, because it is your (your providers) server.
10:36:04 [jschallaboeck]
... often it is said, the work is too complex.
10:36:32 [jschallaboeck]
??1: you have to manage all of this, you cannot stop at the protocollevel.
10:38:02 [tlr]
s/??1/LFPau/
10:38:34 [jschallaboeck]
Giles: Session to be resumed at 13.30
11:32:03 [Kriegel]
Kriegel has joined #privacy
11:36:05 [tlr]
tlr has joined #privacy
11:36:15 [tlr]
Topic: Wrap-up discussion I
11:36:20 [tlr]
ScribeNick: tlr
11:36:30 [tlr]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
11:36:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html tlr
11:43:27 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
11:44:22 [Giles]
Giles has joined #privacy
11:45:18 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
11:46:45 [tlr]
Summary slides will reside at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/summary
11:47:27 [tlr]
danny: Will go through themes that came up repeatedly ...
11:47:34 [tlr]
... some things need more research ...
11:47:48 [tlr]
... "what is user-centric" is likely to be interesting, but lengthy ...
11:49:05 [tlr]
... from several conversations, interest expressed in policy interoperability ...
11:49:14 [rigo]
rigo has joined #privacy
11:49:14 [tlr]
... mechanisms for expressing mappigs among different policy languages ..
11:49:25 [tlr]
... mobile environment might have one way for describing these ...
11:49:32 [tlr]
... other kinds of ubiquitous computing env might have diff policy language ...
11:49:39 [tlr]
... to express rules over same kind of info ...
11:49:49 [tlr]
... describe how these kinds of policies relate, so one can reason over them ...
11:50:21 [tlr]
... to editorialize, either there's one language, or one needs to talk about fulfilling interop needs between different kinds of policies ...
11:50:30 [tlr]
... talked about ways in which access control and usage control paradigms relate ...
11:50:36 [tlr]
... synthesize into common framework? ...
11:50:39 [tlr]
... subsumption? ...
11:51:00 [tlr]
... talked about need to express and bundle up user preferences ...
11:51:05 [tlr]
... have pre-defined sets of preferences? ...
11:51:11 [tlr]
... have standard way to express these preferences? ...
11:51:25 [tlr]
... caveat that came up in discussions: ought to be aware of expectations for ...
11:51:34 [tlr]
... deployment, time horizons, implementaton efforts ...
11:51:43 [tlr]
... ought to be aware whether talking about s13n with near-term impact ...
11:51:54 [tlr]
... or whether we're doing work that's way out there and that might be picked up eventually ...
11:52:02 [tlr]
... seemed to hear preference towards near-term focus ...
11:52:14 [tlr]
... how do things relate to company priorities ...
11:52:19 [tlr]
... don't need to debate this ..
11:52:23 [tlr]
... but it's a theme to keep in mind ...
11:52:42 [tlr]
... are people generally comfortable with these topics, policy interop, framework, user preferences ...
11:52:47 [tlr]
giles: no updates since this morning?
11:52:54 [tlr]
danny: policy interop was talked about a bit more ...
11:53:00 [tlr]
giles: language for evidence and certification ...
11:53:04 [tlr]
... but maybe that was my particular topic ...
11:53:10 [tlr]
... maybe it's not privacy related enough ...
11:53:48 [tlr]
... that's all part of the use idemix area etc ....
11:53:48 [tlr]
danny: subset of point one, interop between policy languages?
11:53:48 [tlr]
... in order to have interoperable rule sets, need interoperability of what they operate on ...
11:53:55 [tlr]
giles: could be very specific
11:54:10 [tlr]
... if it's gonna be done at all, needs work toward that thing alone, not as part of other stuff ...
11:54:33 [tlr]
danny: This doesn't assume how the work get done ...
11:54:37 [tlr]
giles: just mention it
11:55:07 [tlr]
danny: identity assertions?
11:55:09 [tlr]
tlr, rigo, giles: no!
11:55:22 [tlr]
giles: maybe mention idemix; strong relationship
11:55:33 [tlr]
s/no!/no, it's about the evidence that backs these/
11:55:43 [tlr]
rigo: don't forget what Ernesto said yesterday ....
11:55:57 [tlr]
... conditions, actions, obligations ...
11:56:12 [tlr]
soeren: bind follow-ups to original scope of workshop ...
11:56:21 [tlr]
... impression that some of this might be out of scope ...
11:56:31 [tlr]
... can we re-bind to the initial questions of negotiation and enforcement?
11:56:37 [tlr]
... make clear how related to the original topics ...
11:56:39 [tlr]
danny: suggestions?
11:56:53 [tlr]
soeren: see language interoperability -- enforcement over a biz process ...
11:57:07 [tlr]
... if we don't have language interoperability, cannot guarantee privacy enforcement ...
11:57:10 [tlr]
... over a biz process ...
11:57:17 [tlr]
... DRM debate -- connection not evident ...
11:57:30 [tlr]
danny: Don't think this proposes to have the DRM debate, but asks whether DRM techniques might be useful ...
11:58:02 [tlr]
soeren: Make concrete what the relationship between privacy and DRM might be.
11:58:08 [tlr]
Danny: Can keep that in mind, good point.
11:58:18 [tlr]
Marco: related to pont 2 (DRM), talked about common framework ...
11:58:23 [tlr]
... access control, usage control, data handling ...
11:58:28 [tlr]
rigo: This is conditions etc
11:58:31 [tlr]
marco: Framework!
11:58:36 [tlr]
rigo: points 2 and 3
11:58:42 [tlr]
pierangela: ??
11:59:10 [tlr]
pierangela: data handling as concept is richer than obligations only
11:59:27 [tlr]
borking: struck by word "ontologies"
11:59:37 [tlr]
... do we have a world ontologies library?
11:59:42 [tlr]
... make all the ontologies accessible
11:59:44 [tlr]
danny: several
11:59:48 [tlr]
... we may have too many ...
11:59:52 [tlr]
... we can talk about it more ...
11:59:57 [tlr]
borking: store them all in a repository ...
12:00:06 [tlr]
danny: will pose as question under point 1 ...
12:00:26 [tlr]
pazzaglia: negotiation was in the workshop title ...
12:00:29 [tlr]
... negotiation protocol ...
12:00:39 [tlr]
... negotiation will also need metric ...
12:00:45 [tlr]
danny: negotiation was in the title of the workshop ...
12:00:50 [tlr]
... we might not have heard so much about it ...
12:01:01 [tlr]
... this list reflects what we did talk about, not what we should have talked about ...
12:01:05 [tlr]
... explore negotiation further? ...
12:01:14 [tlr]
... not obvious that standardization is req on negotiation protocol ...
12:01:27 [tlr]
... possible to assert that negotiation can emerge on top of standard policy languages ...
12:01:36 [tlr]
... however, we didn't hear much about it, so we can't conclude a lot ...
12:01:48 [tlr]
pazzaglia: fancy negotiation schemes where you can ask a lot and get agreement ...
12:01:54 [tlr]
... kind of blue sky attractive ...
12:02:07 [tlr]
... don't think we might have people to do it ...
12:02:14 [tlr]
danny: "negotiation" under "more research" ...
12:02:35 [tlr]
hannes: commitment to products and implementations for things that take more time ...
12:02:41 [tlr]
... is tricky ...
12:02:47 [tlr]
danny: negotiation was in scope for original P3P work ...
12:02:53 [tlr]
... but didn't work out ...
12:03:01 [tlr]
... tremendous amount of knowledge of this in the ?? community ...
12:03:09 [tlr]
... that community clearly knows something about it ...
12:03:18 [tlr]
s/??/agent/
12:03:23 [tlr]
patricia: link up with the agent community
12:03:34 [tlr]
helena: privacy vs user convenience / together with uesr convenience ...
12:03:39 [tlr]
... as well as privacy and authentication ....
12:03:43 [tlr]
... is that covered there? ...
12:03:51 [tlr]
... authentication doesn't always require identification ...
12:03:56 [tlr]
... put that into the research corner ...
12:04:12 [tlr]
danny: We heard all the work going on in PRIME on privacy-friendly auth{orization,entication} techniques ...
12:04:17 [tlr]
... relevant? ...
12:04:22 [tlr]
helena: not sure whether more research is needed ...
12:04:25 [tlr]
... marit?
12:04:27 [tlr]
marit: giles?
12:04:34 [tlr]
danny: one piece of it is standard way of describing evidence ...
12:04:42 [tlr]
giles: that might be enough for today
12:04:49 [tlr]
helena: well, question was what requires more research ...
12:05:04 [tlr]
marit: chunking could be very much of interest, not for standardization ...
12:05:07 [tlr]
... but for research ....
12:05:09 [tlr]
... user support ...
12:05:13 [tlr]
... minimization of requests ...
12:05:18 [tlr]
helena: user convenience, too
12:05:28 [tlr]
danny: research question?
12:05:39 [tlr]
helena: user convenience during data conveyance in combination with privacy.
12:05:47 [tlr]
giles: what's data conveyance?
12:05:53 [tlr]
helena: that's disclosing personal data
12:05:56 [tlr]
giles: vague
12:06:06 [tlr]
helena: thing is that user convenience is incredibly important in mobile world ...
12:06:10 [tlr]
... constraints ...
12:06:13 [tlr]
... small screens ...
12:06:16 [tlr]
... slow devices ...
12:06:21 [tlr]
... little bandwith ...
12:06:33 [tlr]
... store info on device, and make it simple to user to fill in forms ...
12:06:44 [tlr]
... use P3P to do that ...
12:07:15 [tlr]
patricia: authentication techniques could be an example, but shouldn't be the heading ...
12:08:03 [tlr]
borking: economic aspects ... dunno whether possible for W3C to organize special day just to dive into the economic aspects ...
12:08:07 [tlr]
rigo: that's research ...
12:08:15 [tlr]
soeren: support the idea
12:08:19 [tlr]
rigo: DIW to host?
12:08:44 [tlr]
Soeren nods.
12:08:53 [tlr]
Borking: Could also do it in Rotterdam
12:08:57 [tlr]
helena: subject?
12:09:12 [tlr]
borking: what we need to discuss is whether what we're developing is economically viable ...
12:09:23 [tlr]
danny: W3C happy to co-sponsor such an event ...
12:09:26 [tlr]
... it's important to our work ...
12:09:30 [tlr]
... but not our main area of expertise ...
12:09:34 [tlr]
... happy to talk about it ...
12:09:47 [tlr]
soeren: Didn't see a lot on negotiation or economic aspects at this workshop ...
12:09:53 [tlr]
... need to go deeper into that ...
12:10:01 [tlr]
helena: not questioning the day, just asking what you're envisioning. Clarification.
12:10:05 [tlr]
borking: draft a program ...
12:10:08 [tlr]
... then limit scope ...
12:10:18 [tlr]
... more than enough to have a small symposion on the economics ...
12:10:29 [tlr]
giles: question that. PRIME spends a lot of money on that topic
12:10:34 [tlr]
guenther: there's more than prime
12:10:39 [tlr]
borking: PRIME had economics work package ...
12:10:48 [tlr]
... but they haven't achieved more than describing the borders of the problem ...
12:10:51 [tlr]
... won't go deeper ...
12:11:05 [tlr]
... soeren has a lot of material to discuss, deeper than what's in prime ...
12:11:46 [tlr]
... when there's no proper biz model, things will stay in pockets ...
12:11:52 [guenter]
guenter has joined #privacy
12:11:55 [tlr]
Marit: IST conference in Helsinki, workshop on biz models for identity ...
12:11:59 [tlr]
... PRIME, FIDIS, OpenTC ...
12:12:10 [tlr]
giles: don't duplicate!
12:12:18 [tlr]
danny: suggest to come back to first three topics ...
12:12:23 [tlr]
... sure we'll spin out more new questions as we go ...
12:12:32 [tlr]
... propose to start with first question of policy interoperability ...
12:22:51 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
12:23:35 [rigo]
rigo has joined #privacy
12:23:46 [tlr]
tlr has joined #privacy
12:24:11 [tlr]
... things are likely to happen in a variety of diff policy languages ...
12:24:13 [tlr]
... users gonna have hard time to make choices ...
12:24:16 [tlr]
... user agents gonna have hard time to present useful information ...
12:24:18 [tlr]
... data collectors will have hard time knowing they communicate policies ...
12:24:21 [tlr]
... accurately ...
12:24:23 [tlr]
... some of this is also the problem how back-ends talk to each other ...
12:24:26 [tlr]
... several directions ...
12:24:31 [tlr]
... one is a single language ...
12:24:33 [tlr]
... I'm personally relatively sceptical about that ...
12:24:36 [tlr]
... partially institutional reasons, pratially substantive ...
12:24:38 [tlr]
... promote some degree of greater interoperabiltiy amongst domain-specific ...
12:24:41 [tlr]
... languages? ...
12:24:43 [tlr]
... or is there no solution, and we move on?
12:24:46 [tlr]
patricia: there's a number of diff policy languages out there ...
12:24:48 [tlr]
... many of the domain modeling techniques ...
12:24:51 [tlr]
... different ...
12:24:53 [tlr]
... same true for policies ...
12:24:56 [tlr]
... do we know what those sets of policies are that we can abstract from?...
12:24:58 [tlr]
... thinking a bit in line with work that came from Sun ...
12:25:01 [tlr]
... Robin's table ...
12:25:03 [tlr]
... guessing that's the very first step ...
12:25:06 [tlr]
... some big steps before that ...
12:25:08 [tlr]
... inventory and analysis of policy languages ...
12:25:11 [tlr]
... which we have today and of which we might want interop ...
12:25:13 [tlr]
soeren: join skepticism about unified language ...
12:25:16 [tlr]
... clarifying interfaces between languages would be big step forward ...
12:25:18 [tlr]
djw: anne?
12:25:21 [tlr]
anne: There are cleary some things xacml doesn't do, due to lack ...
12:25:23 [tlr]
... of formal semantic framework ...
12:25:26 [tlr]
... found self thinking "XACML can do that" when listening to other presentations ...
12:25:29 [tlr]
djw: how would xacml approach reasoning over P3P policy language and geopriv language?
12:25:32 [tlr]
anne: mapping between the two?
12:25:34 [tlr]
djw: trying to give scenario
12:25:37 [tlr]
... run a web site ...
12:25:39 [tlr]
... has a p3p policy ...
12:25:42 [tlr]
... you have a user agent, a browser ...
12:25:44 [tlr]
... with some preferences ...
12:25:47 [tlr]
... it will evaluate preferences against browser ...
12:25:49 [tlr]
... now take the browser and its preferences on mobile device ...
12:25:52 [tlr]
... mobile device also ships location information to me ...
12:25:54 [tlr]
... assume that information includes the name ...
12:25:57 [tlr]
... I'm able to get that information ...
12:25:59 [tlr]
... now, I have your name, that I didn't have before ...
12:26:02 [tlr]
... inferring things about geopriv policy language that I don't know ...
12:26:04 [tlr]
... assume it has a way to say "collect your name, don't" ...
12:26:07 [tlr]
... is there a way to express geopriv and p3p in my browser, and learn whether my p3p prefer$
12:26:10 [tlr]
anne: ontology?
12:26:12 [tlr]
ernesto: exactly what I meant yesterday, preferences to conditions ...
12:26:15 [tlr]
danny: trying to get to specific question how xacml will deal with things ...
12:26:17 [tlr]
ernesto: in this scenario, xacml is target language ...
12:26:20 [tlr]
... xacml will have the access conditions to data ...
12:26:22 [tlr]
... preferences don't state this in generic declarative way ...
12:26:25 [tlr]
... so not enforcable as such ...
12:26:27 [tlr]
... could those be enforced by translating ...
12:26:30 [tlr]
danny: not asking enforcement question, but reasoning question
12:26:33 [tlr]
... what I heard from Anne ...
12:26:35 [tlr]
... is that if there is ontology that links two languages ...
12:26:37 [tlr]
... then xacml interaction (??) ...
12:26:40 [tlr]
anne: what P3P calls a name includes more things ....
12:26:42 [tlr]
... that might be a subset of what another language calls a name ...
12:26:45 [tlr]
... not trivial ...
12:26:47 [tlr]
hannes: example explained well what the problem is ...
12:26:50 [tlr]
... usage scenarios are different ...
12:26:52 [tlr]
... so you see where mapping would take place ...
12:26:57 [tlr]
danny: how are they different?
12:27:00 [tlr]
hannes: focusing on SIP-based presence environment ...
12:27:02 [tlr]
.. XACML wouldn't fit there, either ...
12:27:05 [tlr]
danny: why?
12:27:10 [tlr]
hannes: in HTTP case, it was somewhat difficult to extend SIP-ased mechanisms ...
12:27:13 [tlr]
... of course, possible to extend everything ..
12:27:15 [tlr]
... can do whatever you want ...
12:27:18 [tlr]
s/prefer$/preferences have been respected .../
12:27:20 [tlr]
... need more investigation before can say whether it makes sense to combine things ...
12:27:23 [tlr]
... and align them ...
12:27:26 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-irc#T12-27-23
12:27:28 [tlr]
pazzaglia: ??? is one of worst ideas we had in recent years ...
12:27:31 [tlr]
rrsagent, bookmark
12:27:31 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-irc#T12-27-31
12:27:33 [tlr]
... event time based trigger not expressible in xacml? ...
12:27:36 [tlr]
rrsagent, bookmark?
12:27:36 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-irc#T12-27-36
12:27:38 [tlr]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
12:27:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html tlr
12:27:41 [tlr]
... access control perspective ...
12:27:46 [tlr]
... developed ontology, kind of ...
12:27:48 [tlr]
... enter information ...
12:27:51 [tlr]
... to the first point ...
12:27:56 [tlr]
... don't know evolution of xacml ...
12:27:58 [tlr]
... some 200 functions ...
12:28:01 [tlr]
... data type ...
12:28:03 [tlr]
... if we go to ontology, also need to consider functions ...
12:28:06 [tlr]
... if we want to express what you said, will be difficult, but not impossible ...
12:28:09 [tlr]
... go for thnking of ontologies mapping ...
12:28:14 [tlr]
tlr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes
12:28:19 [tlr]
giles: isn't solution to this point what you presented this morning, Rein?
12:28:22 [tlr]
danny: don't know
12:28:24 [tlr]
giles: It's one solution to that exat problem
12:28:27 [tlr]
s/exat/exact/
12:28:32 [tlr]
danny: given certain conditions, yes
12:28:41 [tlr]
giles: start from scratch with Rein or do what has community?
12:28:54 [tlr]
hannes: Trying to see how xacml fits locational presence ...
12:29:02 [tlr]
... possible to describe conditions and actions ...
12:29:05 [tlr]
... not a big deal ...
12:29:13 [tlr]
... event stuff that was previously mentioned goes beyond access control ...
12:29:17 [tlr]
... requires concept of what do with SIP ...
12:29:24 [tlr]
... when tying geopriv and SIP ...
12:29:28 [tlr]
... presence information ...
12:29:37 [tlr]
... in generic HTTP/web environment, it becomes more difficult ...
12:29:46 [tlr]
... how to send messages? ...
12:29:57 [tlr]
... problem not that things don't work ...
12:30:06 [tlr]
... with some of the mechanisms, it's (from IETF point of view) ...
12:30:18 [tlr]
... tried to get XACML into picture couple years ago; push-back ...
12:30:30 [tlr]
... presence work moving forward and being deployed ...
12:31:02 [tlr]
... operator preferences when deploying ...
12:31:28 [tlr]
anne: If you want to reason across policies, XACMl isn't what you need ...
12:31:36 [tlr]
... different abstraction level ...
12:31:54 [tlr]
... talking about different things here ...
12:32:06 [tlr]
... specific languages ...
12:32:20 [tlr]
... how can we reason over communities of languages is different problem, and requires different way of expressing it ...
12:32:34 [tlr]
danny: We have two sets of questions here ...
12:32:50 [tlr]
... one is, is there a reason to do a broader privacy & access control lang for web ...
12:32:55 [tlr]
... or for some communities on the web ...
12:33:02 [tlr]
... the other is, how do we deal with language interop isues ...
12:33:10 [tlr]
... second question is in a way more fruitful ...
12:33:17 [tlr]
... communities go off and do what they do ...
12:33:26 [tlr]
... if they think their interop reqs are minimal ...
12:33:30 [tlr]
... lightweight ...
12:33:36 [tlr]
... but also allow to fulfill interop requirements ...
12:33:45 [tlr]
rigo: specific question; came up in PRIME ...
12:33:49 [tlr]
... protocol paradigm ...
12:34:00 [tlr]
... over years of P3P work, saw misunderstanding again and again ...
12:34:05 [tlr]
... Ernesto said "it's a target language" ...
12:34:11 [tlr]
... expressiveness is a function of protocol ...
12:34:17 [tlr]
... If I use a p3p protocol ...
12:34:28 [tlr]
... ask service, draw policy, policy says what service does ...
12:34:33 [tlr]
... one reason for workshop is change of paradigm ...
12:34:44 [tlr]
... sending data to service, expect service to follow rules sent along with data ...
12:34:48 [tlr]
... "destroy it", things like that ...
12:34:51 [tlr]
... these are a bit different ...
12:34:58 [tlr]
... different from privacy perspective from what we've done so far ...
12:35:18 [tlr]
... big question that came up is whether can push data with xacml ...
12:35:30 [tlr]
... give capabilities, get access ..
12:35:33 [tlr]
... client/server thing ...
12:35:38 [tlr]
... look at data handling paradigm ...
12:35:46 [tlr]
... some web services, acting peer-to-peer ...
12:35:55 [tlr]
... make sure that handling of data item follows rules that were stipulated before ...
12:35:59 [tlr]
... xacml semantics in this case?
12:36:04 [tlr]
... orthogonal to protocol?
12:36:08 [tlr]
... dependent on protocol?
12:36:24 [tlr]
... might need sth else/more ...
12:36:33 [tlr]
... XACML major target language of that kind of system ...
12:36:36 [tlr]
... anne?
12:36:41 [tlr]
anne: Really want to apologize ...
12:36:47 [tlr]
... not a theoretical language person ...
12:36:53 [tlr]
... for your question ...
12:37:04 [tlr]
... there is at least one ongoing effort to use XACML in association with data ...
12:37:18 [tlr]
... looked at within trusted computing kind of model ...
12:37:28 [tlr]
... ensure that all access goes through policy ...
12:37:35 [tlr]
... it's not "can XACML do this"?
12:37:48 [tlr]
... but how is it used? What's the security model?
12:37:51 [tlr]
... XACML only a tool ...
12:37:55 [tlr]
... only one component ...
12:38:12 [tlr]
guenther: xacml as any other policy language is no more or less than an oracle ...
12:38:28 [tlr]
... you feed it with credentials, and then it tells you whether access is allowed or not ...
12:38:33 [tlr]
... maybe with obligations attached ...
12:38:44 [tlr]
hannes: have to think about architecture ...
12:38:54 [tlr]
... how to attach policy to data ...
12:38:58 [tlr]
... size consideration ...
12:39:08 [tlr]
... large xml documents are an issue in mobile world ...
12:39:13 [tlr]
... have other party online ...
12:39:21 [tlr]
... different ways to use it ...
12:39:25 [tlr]
... implement in a proper way ...
12:39:37 [tlr]
guenther: xacml doesn't attach information to resources ...
12:39:46 [tlr]
... compiling information in way necessary to get decision ...
12:40:00 [tlr]
(discussion on naming convention)
12:40:14 [tlr]
... people use in specific way ...
12:40:34 [tlr]
... might have to reconsider a few aspects ...
12:40:40 [tlr]
gka: deployment question vs. language question
12:40:44 [tlr]
hannes: protocol question ...
12:40:45 [Giles]
Giles has joined #privacy
12:40:54 [tlr]
gka: differentiate between language as defined by oasis and possible deployments ...
12:40:54 [Giles]
or possible deployment of that language
12:41:02 [tlr]
ScribeNick: Giles
12:41:20 [Giles]
marco: it can also be a language issue if you cannot describe the right events to give an answer
12:41:22 [tlr]
thanks giles for taking over scribing for a bit
12:41:32 [Giles]
it can be not just based on accesses but other events
12:41:38 [Giles]
you provide a set of attributes
12:41:52 [Giles]
if these attributes encode all the right kind of information, then you are happy with XACML
12:42:21 [Giles]
marco: even data sitting on an enterprise platform needs to be referred to by policies which need to be enforced all the time
12:42:28 [Giles]
even when data is just sitting there
12:42:35 [Giles]
Danny: Wrapping up where we are
12:42:41 [Giles]
there are 2 states
12:43:05 [Giles]
1. an app uses the pol lang that is an empirical qn which every environment will make locally
12:43:24 [Giles]
where that's not possible, for whatever reason, some data abstraction is required
12:43:36 [Giles]
ontologies unify different statements from different languages
12:43:58 [Giles]
nobody suggests that we would make progress towards an uber rule language
12:44:17 [Giles]
Would it be useful for the W3C policy interest group to bring the communities together
12:44:29 [Giles]
Patricia's suggestion to do a survey of languages out there
12:44:34 [Giles]
who is interested in that
12:45:08 [Giles]
it would be useful for that group
12:45:13 [tlr]
ScribeNick: tlr
12:45:19 [tlr]
... might be relevant to RIF group ...
12:45:25 [tlr]
... that's going on in W3C ...
12:45:30 [tlr]
... work on WS-Policy?
12:45:32 [tlr]
rigo: yes
12:45:34 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
12:45:37 [tlr]
danny: work in WS space that's relevant ...
12:45:46 [tlr]
... useful to have point of contact between that group and policy people here ...
12:45:54 [tlr]
rigo: semantic web services relevant as well ..
12:45:59 [tlr]
... ws-policy is pretty constrained ...
12:46:10 [tlr]
... interest group ...
12:46:21 [tlr]
djw: to translate, IG is a group that gets together, with relatively minimal support ...
12:46:30 [tlr]
... but group doesn't have charter to produce formal specs ...
12:46:35 [tlr]
... but can produce documents that get reviewed ...
12:46:43 [tlr]
... place to continue conversation in a focused way ...
12:47:07 [tlr]
??: looking at 5, 6, 7 in research points list ...
12:47:14 [tlr]
danny: let's finish point 1 ...
12:47:19 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
12:47:24 [Giles]
interest in such a thing - patricia, soren,
12:47:30 [tlr]
... had two specific recommendation ...
12:47:42 [tlr]
... standard language for evidence ...
12:47:46 [tlr]
... john on ontology discovery ...
12:47:52 [tlr]
... giles, want to say anything about this aspect ...
12:47:55 [tlr]
giles: evidence stuff?
12:48:01 [tlr]
... I said a lot in my talk ...
12:48:11 [tlr]
... but for anonymous credentials, it's certainly important ...
12:48:21 [tlr]
... emphasize importance of separating evidence and assertions ...
12:48:26 [tlr]
... they have been mixed up badly in the past ...
12:48:30 [tlr]
... as soon as you factor out trust ...
12:48:35 [tlr]
... then it creates a lot more power ...
12:48:44 [tlr]
... can have the same assertion, but different kinds of evidence ...
12:48:50 [tlr]
... bring reputation, community, idemix, what have you ...
12:48:56 [tlr]
... then there's aspect of user friendliness ...
12:49:11 [tlr]
danny: ongoing discussion in semantic web community ...
12:49:22 [tlr]
... whether to standardize foaf ...
12:49:30 [tlr]
... or some other ontology for describing attributes ...
12:49:36 [tlr]
... names, relationships ...
12:49:44 [tlr]
giles: describe trust, mechanisms to evaluate trust ...
12:49:48 [tlr]
... who said what about who? ...
12:50:07 [tlr]
danny: interesting area ...
12:50:14 [tlr]
... it's the kind of thing that could profit from informal community ...
12:50:21 [tlr]
... don't wanna use the word standard ...
12:50:27 [tlr]
... foaf has evolved in bottom-up way ...
12:50:38 [tlr]
... other lightweight id technologies that need same set of tools ...
12:50:43 [tlr]
... same sort of consensus on terms ...
12:50:46 [tlr]
... and types of data ...
12:50:49 [tlr]
giles: metalanguage
12:50:51 [tlr]
danny: yeah
12:51:01 [tlr]
giles: starting point could be paper by Dieter and Giles ...
12:51:08 [tlr]
... ontology sketch ...
12:51:15 [tlr]
danny: possible use for a policy interest group ...
12:51:23 [tlr]
... boil a paper down into what could be outlines for a tech spec ...
12:51:27 [tlr]
... get review of it ...
12:51:33 [tlr]
... way to get feed-back from immediate community ...
12:51:38 [tlr]
... get people to help ...
12:51:42 [tlr]
giles: interested in doing that ...
12:51:46 [tlr]
... maybe not in three weeks ...
12:51:57 [tlr]
soeren: different experts in different languages ...
12:52:03 [tlr]
... bringing these together might be healthy ...
12:52:17 [tlr]
danny: sensing that people are leaving ...
12:52:19 [tlr]
... almsot 3pm ...
12:52:29 [tlr]
... break scheduled at 3:15 ...
12:52:32 [tlr]
rigo: break now?
12:53:09 [tlr]
break
13:19:21 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
13:20:04 [tlr]
meeting reconvenes
13:20:08 [Giles]
Giles has joined #privacy
13:20:12 [tlr]
Danny: We can consider #1 wrapped up ...
13:20:21 [tlr]
... record identities of everybody interested in the Interest Group ...
13:20:57 [tlr]
hannes: W3C membership considerations?
13:21:01 [tlr]
danny: open for discussion
13:21:19 [xavier]
xavier has joined #privacy
13:21:34 [tlr]
... suggest PFIG ...
13:22:18 [tlr]
... interested: Patricia, Anne, Piero, Giles, Renato, Hannes, Marco, Pierangela, Jean-Christophe Pazzaglia,
13:22:25 [tlr]
... Marit ...
13:22:33 [tlr]
... Sören ...
13:22:48 [tlr]
... Xavier ...
13:22:58 [tlr]
... thanks ...
13:23:09 [tlr]
... this does not constitute the creation of the group ...
13:23:15 [tlr]
... some process to go through, find chair, etc ...
13:23:18 [tlr]
... expect to hear back from us ...
13:23:29 [tlr]
... fact that there's this number of people interested is important sign ...
13:23:35 [tlr]
... before go into item 2, general point ...
13:23:55 [tlr]
GiulianoPirelli: disability issues ...
13:24:27 [tlr]
... accessibility ...
13:25:07 [tlr]
... negotiate how far to give information ...
13:25:19 [tlr]
... information often asked in very quick way ...
13:25:26 [tlr]
... sign lots of forms without reading at bank ...
13:25:34 [tlr]
... membership in group and the like is very important ...
13:25:56 [tlr]
... include disability info in passport? ...
13:26:11 [tlr]
... does someone know other group? ...
13:26:15 [tlr]
... european disability card? ...
13:26:26 [tlr]
danny: useful way to record is as a use case ...
13:26:31 [tlr]
... for preferences and usage rules ...
13:26:44 [tlr]
... use case that want to make sure is satisfied ...
13:27:01 [tlr]
Giuliano: ???
13:27:09 [tlr]
giles: Not relevant to topic.
13:27:11 [tlr]
... this is about policy languages ...
13:27:26 [tlr]
giuliano: language should accept input from other way of taking care of this information ...
13:27:40 [tlr]
tlr: vocabulary requirement?
13:27:48 [tlr]
giuliano: more research.
13:27:55 [tlr]
... looking for others who might be interested ...
13:28:12 [tlr]
... language for representing this information ...
13:28:19 [tlr]
rigo: Will go to Geneva tomorrow, ICTSB meeting ...
13:28:27 [tlr]
... round table of all the major European standardizers ...
13:28:37 [tlr]
... they have a working group that addresses all kinds of disabilities ...
13:28:45 [tlr]
... wihch is called DABSIG (?) ...
13:28:50 [tlr]
... right forum to address these concerns ...
13:28:56 [tlr]
... addressing disabilities, accessibility ...
13:29:04 [tlr]
... far beyond the web and the languages we are talking about here ...
13:29:07 [tlr]
... happy to give reference ...
13:29:11 [tlr]
giuliano: thanks
13:29:48 [tlr]
JanZibuschka: Also relevant to SC27 SGs on identity management and privacy frameworks.
13:30:17 [tlr]
danny: Next of our three topics -- talked yesterday about access control, data handling, usage control ...
13:30:20 [guenter]
guenter has joined #privacy
13:30:23 [tlr]
... are different, same, overlapping, care about this, ...
13:30:31 [tlr]
... think that from my standpoint, there is substantive ...
13:30:38 [tlr]
... functional difference between rules that govern ...
13:30:48 [tlr]
... access conditions on data, and rules that govern ultimate usage conditions ...
13:30:53 [tlr]
... say that from a publc policy perspective ...
13:30:57 [tlr]
... not from rules semantic perspective ...
13:31:10 [tlr]
... interesting question: how do we see the interaction betw access control expr and usage control expr?
13:31:20 [tlr]
renato: example from rights management perspective ...
13:31:23 [tlr]
... lots of blurring going on ...
13:31:27 [tlr]
... from work in edu sector ...
13:31:32 [tlr]
... want high level licenses ...
13:31:41 [tlr]
... "you can use this content for all students and staff" ...
13:31:55 [tlr]
... what's the access control mechanism to ensure that the folk accessing that content are students & staff ...
13:32:03 [tlr]
... rights license -> low level access control policy ...
13:32:08 [tlr]
... map together, keep closely aligned ...
13:32:19 [tlr]
... don't want to stipulate low-level details ...
13:32:22 [tlr]
... too binding ...
13:32:29 [tlr]
... separate rights and access control ...
13:32:39 [tlr]
patricia: from our pov (applicationS) ...
13:32:44 [tlr]
... social networking, sharing, content ...
13:32:56 [tlr]
... DRM & standards for commercial content, access, usage ...
13:33:00 [tlr]
... learn from it ...
13:33:11 [tlr]
... need simplified model to map what the users need ...
13:33:18 [tlr]
... this goes back to point 1, policy mapping ...
13:33:23 [tlr]
... at some point, go down to action level ...
13:33:27 [tlr]
... kind of the way we've used it ...#
13:33:32 [tlr]
... rather than invent new terminology ...
13:33:35 [tlr]
... link that we saw ...
13:33:38 [tlr]
... in terms of usage ...
13:33:42 [tlr]
... more that can be done ...
13:33:46 [tlr]
... first step that we did ...
13:33:50 [tlr]
... enough challenges ...
13:33:54 [tlr]
... sth we can pull in ...
13:34:17 [tlr]
pierangela: re difference betw drm and dhp ...
13:34:23 [tlr]
... in drm can put any rules on it ...
13:34:30 [tlr]
... any rules that I say applies ...
13:34:40 [tlr]
... when I get songs from itunes, whatever rules are there, enforce ...
13:34:49 [tlr]
... in b2b context, rules that biz imposes have to be accepted ...
13:35:07 [tlr]
... but when user sends stuff to business, can't impose arbitrary rules ...
13:35:12 [tlr]
... some, but not arbitrary ones ...
13:35:16 [tlr]
... Rigo's supermarket example ...
13:35:22 [tlr]
... so there's a difference from DRM ..
13:35:40 [tlr]
... both should be supported ..
13:35:46 [tlr]
... odn't know whether same language / same rules ...
13:36:04 [tlr]
... constraints in data handling not related that much to rules, but to data (??) ...
13:36:13 [tlr]
s/odn't/don't/
13:36:25 [tlr]
renato: just to follow up on that point ...
13:36:28 [tlr]
... ORDL 2 ...
13:36:31 [tlr]
... that we're modeling now ...
13:36:41 [tlr]
... one of things put in there is ability to negotiate betw parties ...
13:36:47 [tlr]
... so it's not purely that one-way thing ...
13:36:55 [tlr]
... negotiation can occur ...
13:37:07 [tlr]
... want to steal someone else's negotiation protocol, if possible ...
13:37:11 [tlr]
... instead of reinventing our own one ...
13:37:16 [tlr]
... can we reuse something in the rights management world?
13:37:20 [tlr]
s/steal/use/
13:37:32 [tlr]
rigo: say: border between drm and data handling blurred -- agree ...
13:37:37 [tlr]
... but they have common characteristic ...
13:37:45 [tlr]
... data is released, but you want to continue to control it ...
13:37:54 [tlr]
... question of how to enforce is the same one ...
13:38:04 [tlr]
danny: let's remind ourselves, access control vs usage control ...
13:38:09 [tlr]
... it's the case that DRM can cover both ...
13:38:14 [tlr]
... but they're different ...
13:38:53 [tlr]
... shift from usage rules to access rules is what gets DRM its bad reputation ...
13:38:57 [jash]
jash has joined #privacy
13:39:29 [tlr]
...
13:39:39 [tlr]
pierangela: you say "two kinds of rules, access control and usage" ...
13:39:44 [tlr]
... usage isn't secondary usage, right? ...
13:39:54 [tlr]
danny: don't mean "usage" in traditional data protection sense ...
13:39:56 [tlr]
anne: examples?
13:40:03 [tlr]
danny: two examples ...
13:40:17 [tlr]
... you may never use genetic information to make decisions about health insurance coverage ...
13:40:25 [tlr]
... you may not copy more than one paragraph of this document ...
13:40:32 [tlr]
... those are both usage rules ...
13:40:40 [tlr]
pierangela: secondary usage control?
13:40:53 [tlr]
... constraints should I pass to others?
13:41:00 [tlr]
danny: I guess those should be expressed as usage rules ...
13:41:05 [tlr]
pierangela: call secondary usage ...
13:41:11 [tlr]
... data-handling ....
13:41:19 [tlr]
... another kind of world with respect to usage rules ...
13:41:30 [tlr]
danny: marco, referred to data handling rules ...
13:41:36 [tlr]
... not sure what they mean as distinct from other categories ...
13:41:55 [tlr]
pierangela breaks warp barrier, scribe gives up.
13:42:23 [tlr]
pierangela: what I call secondary usage is the policy that goes along with the data ...
13:42:38 [tlr]
danny: from web perspective, reluctant to divide rules in that way ...
13:42:46 [tlr]
... understand data protection policy purpose for distinguishing betw ...
13:42:52 [tlr]
... primary and 2dary purpose ...
13:42:56 [tlr]
... important to express ...
13:43:05 [tlr]
... but disinclined to condition or qualify that by notion of transfer ...
13:43:11 [tlr]
... transfer is separate question ...
13:43:19 [tlr]
... can have secondary usage limitation on initial party ...
13:43:25 [tlr]
pierangela: who is that? ...
13:43:32 [tlr]
danny: the first guy who gets usage ...
13:43:43 [tlr]
pierangela: I give health information to you, and you might have to pass it on ...
13:43:50 [tlr]
... I might want to further restrict what that other party can do ...
13:43:58 [tlr]
... not necessarily the same rules that apply to you ...
13:44:07 [tlr]
... sticky policy ..
13:44:24 [tlr]
danny: happy to call it anything but access control ...
13:44:37 [tlr]
general brawl
13:44:43 [tlr]
piero: support latest point ...
13:44:57 [tlr]
... don't expect these differences between data handling and access control to affect shape as language ...
13:45:04 [tlr]
... more relevant to enforcement mechanisms ...
13:45:10 [tlr]
... pretty relevant to enforcement ...
13:45:20 [tlr]
marco: what was the question to me?
13:45:32 [tlr]
danny: data handling ... but don't need perfect taxonomy ...
13:45:44 [tlr]
marco: what we call data handling in PRIME is obligation stuff ...
13:45:50 [tlr]
... not really access control & how you use data ...
13:45:54 [tlr]
... but rather life cycle handling ...
13:46:04 [tlr]
... data retention is an example ...
13:46:06 [tlr]
... notification ...
13:46:18 [tlr]
patricia: examples due to usage control, when youhand over to second person, what we'Ve done in system ...
13:46:29 [tlr]
... using policy model conert to rules, write what else can be done to content when handed over ...
13:46:33 [tlr]
... forward or copy content ...
13:46:39 [tlr]
... view, forward to certain environment ....
13:46:42 [tlr]
... encode into sticky policy ...
13:46:48 [tlr]
... that's usage of content ...
13:46:52 [tlr]
... access is already there ...
13:47:07 [tlr]
sören: wonder if there may be usage of data without having access ...
13:47:13 [tlr]
... relation between access rules and usage rules ...
13:47:41 [tlr]
xavier: makes sense to make difference between first usage and secondary usage ...
13:47:45 [tlr]
... access control to data ...
13:47:52 [tlr]
... which entities are allowed to access data ...
13:47:54 [tlr]
... usage ...
13:47:57 [tlr]
... user preferences ...
13:48:05 [tlr]
... if you talk about secondary usage, talking about legislation there ...
13:48:12 [tlr]
... again, if I draw the parallel with own experience ...
13:48:15 [tlr]
... in egov ...
13:48:18 [tlr]
... really have specific regulations ...
13:48:38 [tlr]
.. scientific purposes: even though you have collected data for specific purpose, can do other stuff when anonymizing data ...
13:48:42 [tlr]
... important to make the difference ...
13:48:46 [tlr]
... able to talk about other things ...
13:48:54 [tlr]
... not just usage and access control (??) ...
13:49:00 [tlr]
pierangela: agree on enforcement problem ...
13:49:11 [tlr]
... specific techniques to make sure policies get enforced ...
13:49:14 [tlr]
... not just enforcement ...
13:49:27 [tlr]
...
13:49:41 [tlr]
... before was talking about secondary usage, but have to correct self ...
13:49:51 [tlr]
... P3P was known as secondary usage control language ...
13:50:07 [tlr]
... can't do everything, only some things -- usage controls ...
13:50:12 [jschallaboeck]
jschallaboeck has joined #privacy
13:50:19 [tlr]
... not sure what P3P does, but think it might capture this ...
13:50:31 [tlr]
... hospital example ..
13:50:50 [tlr]
... if my data leave the hospital, there should be constraints ...
13:50:58 [tlr]
... originator control ...
13:51:03 [tlr]
... all my data should be controlled by me ...
13:51:15 [tlr]
danny: probably explored as far as we need to ...
13:51:35 [tlr]
... people have talked about diff kinds of rules, and they seemed to fall into these categories ...
13:51:43 [tlr]
... not sure we need to recognize anything momentous ....
13:51:47 [tlr]
(general brawl again)
13:51:56 [tlr]
... we have recognized there's more than one ...
13:52:48 [tlr]
xavier: continue discussion about what renato said ...
13:53:12 [tlr]
... DRM v2 with domains and specs of devices ...
13:53:19 [tlr]
danny: sorry to be rude -- want some time to talk about #3 ...
13:53:27 [tlr]
... lots of opportunities to talk about what >1 means ...
13:53:39 [tlr]
... user preferences ...
13:53:49 [tlr]
... questions raised in the 2 days about whether we need a way to express user preferences ...
13:53:54 [tlr]
.. group them, predefined sets ...
13:54:04 [tlr]
... comment, suggested direction? ...
13:54:12 [tlr]
patricia: one of the things that have come up from discussion ...
13:54:15 [tlr]
... ease of use ...
13:54:25 [tlr]
... lots of complexity ...
13:54:34 [tlr]
... map things to predefined set for certain set of applications ...
13:54:46 [tlr]
... other part is getting a privacy model ...
13:54:51 [tlr]
... in a sense that also maps back ...
13:54:55 [tlr]
... pertinent to application sets ...
13:55:20 [tlr]
... unify across different policy languages ...
13:55:25 [tlr]
... express preferences over these abstractions ...
13:55:36 [tlr]
... would help with simplifying things from user standpoint ...
13:55:43 [tlr]
xavier: privacy preferences are private info as well ...
13:56:07 [tlr]
... there may be orgs such as consumer councils that might publish predefined sets ...
13:56:15 [tlr]
... see that there are languages that are centered on interactions ...
13:56:21 [tlr]
... like P3P, DRM langs, XACML, ...
13:56:25 [tlr]
s/xavier/soeren/
13:56:30 [tlr]
... these don't reveal preferences
13:56:34 [tlr]
rigo: important part of discussion ...
13:56:40 [tlr]
... perhaps try to conclude ...
13:56:48 [tlr]
... can we leverage XACML in user preference discussion?
13:56:52 [tlr]
... what it does, what it doesn't ...
13:56:56 [tlr]
... important point in workshop ...
13:56:58 [tlr]
... was important in PRIME ...
13:57:03 [tlr]
... will be important in other contexts ...
13:57:10 [tlr]
... mapping ...
13:57:26 [tlr]
Anne: Example for XACML use to express user preferences ...
13:57:43 [tlr]
... perfectly possible to say "I'm willing to give credit card information if target is in certain domain" ...
13:57:54 [tlr]
... another one might be "willing to give name, if other party is willing not to pass on info" ...
13:58:03 [tlr]
... there's question of matching those against what target says it's able to do...
13:58:06 [tlr]
... that, too, can be expressed ...
13:58:12 [tlr]
... neither one of these is XACML policy ...
13:58:21 [tlr]
... expressed using these collections of constraints ...
13:58:25 [tlr]
... expressing sets of preferences ...
13:58:32 [tlr]
... combinations of things you're willing to accept ...
13:58:37 [tlr]
... perfectly possible to express in XACML ...
13:58:48 [tlr]
... possible for target to express capabilities ...
13:58:56 [tlr]
danny: what do you mean by "not exactly XACML policy"?
13:59:07 [tlr]
anne: It's not possible to match 2 xacml policies in general ...
13:59:16 [tlr]
... semantics of policies are not something that let you determine that one is subset of another ...
13:59:29 [tlr]
... but it is possible to match collections of individual constraints that are expressed using the XACML constraint language ...
13:59:40 [tlr]
giles: would say preferences are just another kind of rule ...
13:59:46 [tlr]
... don't make them into sth special ...
13:59:49 [tlr]
... difficulty is HCI ...
14:00:08 [tlr]
... use standards rule language to express query and event and match on this ...
14:00:16 [tlr]
... then do user-friendly abstraction (which is the hard part) ...
14:00:19 [tlr]
... been there with P3P ...
14:00:21 [tlr]
... APPEL ...
14:00:30 [tlr]
... could have used XPath and added user abstraction ...
14:00:42 [tlr]
danny: we're right at end of our alotted time, co-chair has to leave
14:01:01 [tlr]
s/co-chair/esteemed co-chair/
14:01:07 [Giles]
esteemed co-chair...
14:01:18 [tlr]
danny: don't think we'll get much further on preferences ...
14:01:23 [tlr]
... policy interoperability ...
14:01:28 [tlr]
... hci issues are very real ...
14:01:36 [tlr]
... semantic and computation closely related to policy inteorp ...
14:01:40 [tlr]
... come back to that ...
14:01:45 [tlr]
... gonna suggest that we conclude ...
14:02:04 [tlr]
... unless anyone has anything that they think should cause co-chair to miss taxi ...
14:02:10 [tlr]
... thanks to Giles & JRC ...
14:02:13 [tlr]
(applause)
14:02:21 [tlr]
... also acknowledge Rigo and Thomas who pulled that together ...
14:02:27 [tlr]
(applause)
14:02:34 [tlr]
(applause for chairs)
14:02:51 [tlr]
... we'll circulate draft summary report, give you opportunity to comment ...
14:03:11 [tlr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:03:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html tlr
14:03:33 [lkagal]
lkagal has joined #privacy
14:03:38 [tlr]
... will create list for everyone to circulate report, comments, etc ...
14:03:57 [lkagal]
Hi Thomas, thanks for inviting me :)
14:03:59 [tlr]
rigo: would ask whether anyone opposed to being added to list ...
14:04:04 [tlr]
danny: adequate consent
14:04:13 [tlr]
adjourned
14:04:48 [rigo]
noted
14:04:49 [tlr]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
14:04:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html tlr
14:05:07 [rigo]
Kriegel wants to be on the mailing list too
14:05:16 [rigo]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:05:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-privacy-minutes.html rigo
14:10:56 [xavier]
xavier has left #privacy
14:30:32 [Kriegel]
Kriegel has left #privacy
16:16:53 [lkagal]
lkagal has joined #privacy
16:20:24 [lkagal]
lkagal has left #privacy