IRC log of privacy on 2012-09-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:55:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #privacy
15:55:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:55:52 [npdoty]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:56:01 [npdoty]
Meeting: Privacy Interest Group teleconference
15:56:09 [npdoty]
chair: christine
15:56:11 [Zakim]
15:56:16 [rigo]
zakim, mute me
15:56:16 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
15:56:41 [rigo]
agenda+ Introductions of new members and guests
15:56:44 [spreibus]
spreibus has joined #privacy
15:56:59 [Zakim]
15:57:04 [tara]
Hi. For some reason, I can't get Skype to get me through the bridge - never get the prompt for the code.
15:57:08 [rigo]
agenda+ Permissions on the Web (Guest: Dom)
15:57:21 [tara]
But I am here on IRC and will do the best I can.
15:57:22 [rigo]
agenda+ Coordinating and delivering privacy reviews of draft W3C specifications
15:57:27 [npdoty]
tara, note that the code is 1932 today, not the usual
15:57:34 [tara]
I know - never got that far!
15:57:44 [Zakim]
15:57:44 [npdoty]
also, you might try calling in a few times, Zakim has been acting up the past few days
15:57:56 [rigo]
tara, keep on re-trying
15:57:57 [tara]
Twice so far; will keep trying. Thanks!
15:58:14 [JC]
JC has joined #PRIVACY
15:58:17 [rigo]
I had also trouble from a normal phone, seems like there is another large conf going on
15:58:35 [Zakim]
+ +44.122.376.aabb
15:58:36 [christine]
christine has joined #privacy
15:58:49 [Zakim]
15:59:00 [fjh]
zakim, ??P21 is me
15:59:00 [Zakim]
+fjh; got it
15:59:01 [spreibus]
Zakim, +44.122.376.aabb is me.
15:59:02 [Zakim]
+spreibus; got it
15:59:03 [rigo]
zakim, unmute me
15:59:03 [Zakim]
Rigo should no longer be muted
15:59:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.613.304.aacc
15:59:34 [Zakim]
15:59:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.701.aadd
15:59:59 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +, Rigo, npdoty, [IPcaller], spreibus, fjh, +1.613.304.aacc, justin_, +1.510.701.aadd
16:00:13 [fjh]
Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:00:14 [tara]
zakim, +1.613.304.aacc is me.
16:00:14 [Zakim]
+tara; got it
16:00:23 [dom]
Zakim, call dom-mobile
16:00:23 [Zakim]
ok, dom; the call is being made
16:00:24 [Zakim]
16:01:08 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaaa is Kboudaou
16:01:08 [Zakim]
+Kboudaou; got it
16:01:20 [rigo]
zakim, aaaa is Karima_Boudaoud
16:01:20 [Zakim]
sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
16:01:23 [Kboudaou]
Kboudaou is Karima
16:01:28 [npdoty]
Zakim, justin_ is actually joehall today
16:01:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'justin_ is actually joehall today', npdoty
16:01:31 [Zakim]
16:01:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, justin_ is actually joehall
16:01:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'justin_ is actually joehall', npdoty
16:01:42 [npdoty]
Zakim, justin_ is really [CDT]
16:01:42 [Zakim]
+[CDT]; got it
16:01:49 [npdoty]
Zakim, [CDT] has joehall
16:01:49 [Zakim]
+joehall; got it
16:01:54 [rigo]
zakim, Kboudaou is really Karima_Boudaoud
16:01:54 [Zakim]
+Karima_Boudaoud; got it
16:02:05 [rigo]
scribenick: rigo
16:02:10 [rigo]
scirbe: rigo
16:02:15 [npdoty]
Zakim, agenda?
16:02:18 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:02:22 [Zakim]
1. Introductions of new members and guests [from rigo]
16:02:25 [Zakim]
2. Permissions on the Web (Guest: Dom) [from rigo]
16:02:27 [Zakim]
3. Coordinating and delivering privacy reviews of draft W3C specifications [from rigo]
16:02:28 [christine]
Regrets, Hannes Tschofenig, Erin Kenneally
16:02:41 [npdoty]
agenda+ Proposed candidates for PING review
16:02:49 [npdoty]
agenda+ Privacy considerations
16:02:57 [npdoty]
agenda+ Liaisons
16:03:16 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
16:03:16 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Introductions of new members and guests" taken up [from rigo]
16:03:21 [rigo]
regrets+ Hannes_Tschofenig Erin_Kenneally
16:03:30 [tara]
tara has joined #privacy
16:03:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.207.756.aaee
16:04:06 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:04:13 [rigo]
zakim, who is tortured
16:04:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is tortured', rigo
16:04:16 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (74%)
16:04:49 [rigo]
Presentation: Rigo, W3C Legal Counsel
16:04:53 [christine]
Zakim, {IP caller} is me
16:04:54 [Zakim]
I don't understand '{IP caller} is me', christine
16:04:55 [JC]
JC Cannon, Microsoft, online privacy strategy
16:04:56 [rigo]
Christine Runnegar, ISOC
16:05:01 [rigo]
JC Cannon, MS
16:05:04 [npdoty]
Nick Doty, W3C
16:05:08 [christine]
Zakim, [IP caller] is me
16:05:10 [rigo]
Joe Hall, CDT
16:05:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[IP caller] is me', christine
16:05:11 [dom]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is christine
16:05:17 [Zakim]
+christine; got it
16:05:24 [Zakim]
16:05:30 [rigo]
Dom, W3C
16:05:36 [spreibus]
Sören Preibusch, U Cambridge
16:05:45 [rigo]
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia, Chair of DAP WG
16:05:49 [tara]
Tara Whalen, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, PING co-chair
16:05:54 [dom]
s/Dom/Dominique Hazael-Massieux/
16:05:57 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #privacy
16:06:22 [dom]
Zakim, who's on the call?
16:06:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Karima_Boudaoud, Rigo, npdoty, christine, spreibus, fjh, tara, [CDT], +1.510.701.aadd, Dom, [Microsoft], +1.207.756.aaee, ??P35
16:06:25 [Zakim]
[CDT] has joehall
16:06:30 [Zakim]
16:06:35 [rigo]
Mark Lizar, working on Open Notes
16:06:37 [npdoty]
Mark Lizar, Open Notice effort
16:06:38 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:06:38 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:06:46 [npdoty]
s/Open Notes/Open Notice/
16:07:04 [JoeHallCDT]
JoeHallCDT has joined #privacy
16:07:19 [rigo]
?? Customer comments
16:07:28 [Zakim]
16:07:35 [MacTed]
Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
16:07:35 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:07:37 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:07:37 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:07:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
16:07:39 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Permissions on the Web (Guest: Dom)" taken up [from rigo]
16:08:00 [ebw]
ebw has joined #privacy
16:08:15 [christine]
Yes chair apologies for the echo
16:08:24 [rigo]
CR: have a guest today, introducing Dom
16:08:35 [dom]
16:09:30 [rigo]
DHM: issue coming up in web platform, presented in WWW 2012, basic issue is that the more features we bring to the browser, the more risk we create in terms of privacy and security. Create a hole in the sandbox
16:10:19 [rigo]
... two WGs where this is salient: DAP and WebRTC Working Group. Want to start discussion on make the web as powerful as it needs to be and keep its privacy preserving capabilities
16:10:20 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
16:10:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Karima_Boudaoud, Rigo, npdoty, christine, spreibus, fjh, tara, [CDT], +1.510.701.aadd, Dom, [Microsoft], +1.207.756.aaee, ??P35, [Apple], MacTed (muted)
16:10:23 [Zakim]
[CDT] has joehall
16:10:23 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:10:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ebw, JoeHallCDT, dsinger, tara, christine, JC, spreibus, RRSAgent, fjh, Zakim, npdoty, rigo, dom, Kboudaou, MacTed, wseltzer
16:10:38 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #privacy
16:10:51 [rigo]
... classical issues: Making possible for web application to access camera on the device.
16:11:22 [npdoty]
s/?? Customer comments/Mary Hodder:
16:11:32 [rigo]
... creates privacy issues. Pages shouldn't get access to your camera, would open device to spying and surveillance
16:11:58 [rigo]
... one possible solution is to ask for permission, same issue for location dependent services
16:12:18 [spreibus]
recently example of Web cam problem:
16:12:25 [rigo]
... hard issue ot communicate the issue to the user on what thisis supposed to do
16:13:13 [rigo]
... difficult issues in terms of user interface. Even once you have obtained user permission. And you want the user to be aware that a permission is granted and active, how to do that
16:13:26 [rigo]
... classical issues of DAP
16:13:45 [rigo]
.... there is no clear plan to make this future proof
16:14:49 [rigo]
... another issue is linked with fingerprinting. The more features youi provide, the better people can re-recognize your device. Again the camera and its resolution can be revealing, the codecs that is used, any number of capabilities, whether it has a flash or not
16:15:29 [rigo]
... in most cases not a problem, but if you do that on the web, it would be so much information to identify a browser uniquely
16:16:04 [rigo]
... again an issue that every group is facing. The more groups are facing it, the more fingerprinting becomes a palpable issue.
16:16:15 [rigo]
... is fingerprintting the wrong battle?
16:16:23 [npdoty]
some people are debating whether fingerprinting is still a battle worth fighting or not
16:16:39 [rigo]
... this needs a permissions model
16:17:03 [fjh]
think about media capabilities requests for example
16:17:05 [rigo]
... in many cases people want to have trusted applications that could ignore most of those issues
16:17:36 [rigo]
... some also linked to site-wide authentication, might want to share more information, non trivial problems
16:18:20 [rigo]
... once you get access to more private data, addressbook and calendar, you get more info that allows new types of attack
16:19:16 [rigo]
... creates tensions and difficulties. Some early solutions that emerge, web characteristics has some ??
16:19:58 [rigo]
... another different apporach, system application WG, that group is proposing to take all technology out of the browser context
16:20:52 [rigo]
... leaving aside all the issues on privacy and security. Taking an application logic, platform already provides those barriers, sidelining the issues by taking this platform? approach
16:21:52 [rigo]
... technical groups working on these issues. Went to F2F of the TAG, Unfortunately, the person caring left. Now want to find a person to drive this
16:22:13 [rigo]
.... not only on privacy but also on security, mainly that touches W3C WGs
16:22:47 [rigo]
.... perhaps someone from this group would be interested. Is a problem that was debated any number of times and there hasn't been a clear outcome so far
16:22:49 [rigo]
16:23:04 [rigo]
DHM: Question?
16:23:16 [npdoty]
ack rigo
16:24:11 [fjh]
16:24:11 [Fred]
Fred has joined #privacy
16:24:14 [rigo]
CR: Excellent presentation
16:24:16 [JC]
Rigo: When we discuss UI in tracking protection working group, browser vendors are not open to these discussions
16:24:26 [npdoty]
rigo: when this comes up in Tracking Protection or other groups, it's often related to key UI issues
16:24:37 [fjh]
16:24:47 [npdoty]
... are browser vendors ready to talk about UI? that's often been a blocker in past discussions
16:25:30 [rigo]
DHM: UI remains something that browsers compete. So far the approach has been UI based. Not everything can be solved in UI, especially if htere is no solid foundation for the UI to drag on, Inconsistencies that come into play. Need a place where browsers can discuss
16:25:42 [rigo]
... communalities where they could aline
16:25:56 [JC]
16:26:21 [rigo]
DHM: expressing things to the user is UI, but problems go beyond
16:26:27 [rigo]
ack JC
16:26:40 [fjh]
16:26:45 [rigo]
JC: do we know whether inconsistency is an issue for consumers
16:27:17 [dom]
q+ to mention mobile as another issue with UI
16:27:57 [JoeHallCDT]
is JC asking for research results on cross-browser privacy confusion?
16:28:05 [npdoty]
there may be some research on this question, if not explicitly with different browsers than with different software platforms in general
16:28:17 [npdoty]
JoeHallCDT, yes, I think so, do you have a good source?
16:28:49 [JC]
I was asking a general question not specific to privacy
16:29:11 [rigo]
DHM: ?? WG worked on security indicator for browser, it was mixed experience
16:29:24 [dom]
s/??/Web Security UI/
16:29:30 [JoeHallCDT]
npdoty, probably… if we can refine the query a bit!
16:29:32 [npdoty]
File->Open didn't require explicit standardization, though, so maybe we could use a lighter weight process to achieve those commonalities
16:30:06 [rigo]
CR: so far we have been unfortunate about UI standardization, but there are also other approaches, can they replace a focus on UI?
16:30:28 [npdoty]
dom, are you referring to this doc: ?
16:30:28 [rigo]
ML: there is value in looking what possible solutions are
16:30:33 [rigo]
ack fjh
16:30:35 [dom]
yes, npdoty
16:31:04 [Zakim]
16:31:21 [rigo]
FJH: not everything goes into UI, compositing that mashes, red eye removal is a functionality somewhere on the web without user interaction
16:31:36 [dom]
q+ to talk about help on fingerprinting
16:31:38 [rigo]
... is there informed consent? There is not always an UI
16:31:41 [rigo]
16:31:50 [rigo]
ack dom
16:31:50 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to mention mobile as another issue with UI and to talk about help on fingerprinting
16:31:53 [fjh]
16:32:38 [rigo]
DHM: another reason why pure UI approaches are difficult is that on mobile devices screen real estate is reduced
16:32:38 [fjh]
an example of not having a UI and not getting permission from the user is when you have a composite app that makes externally used apps transparent
16:32:45 [rigo]
16:33:02 [rigo]
DHM: mobile further complicates things
16:34:36 [rigo]
... group asked about finger printing, would be extremely useful if this group could explain what fingerprinting is and what the challenge is and present ways to mitigate while still allowing for deeper integration. I don't think there has been enough discussion so far, What about private browsing mode. It would be great if htis group could work on that
16:35:01 [npdoty]
is the suggestion there input to various WGs about what they should keep in mind regarding fingerprinting as they develop new features?
16:35:03 [rigo]
CR: see your clear message to work on fingerprinting and have some good people to work on that
16:35:09 [rigo]
ack fjh
16:36:30 [rigo]
FJH: what question are we answering, we have to get the question right. many players and components, not privacy by design will help, people simplify and this is good engineering. Should we address limitations of service providers
16:36:58 [npdoty]
I think JC had also mentioned the possibility of recommendations for deployments/developers and not just spec-writers and browser implementers
16:37:14 [JC]
16:37:38 [rigo]
DHM: agree that finding the right question is part of the problem. On ISP, there are two kind of service providers. One is rather attackers that do not care about privacy, and good guys who lack guidance
16:38:14 [rigo]
... in practice we can not do much about attackers other than making their life as hard as possible and give them less data
16:38:47 [rigo]
... too little effort on service providers who want to do the right things.
16:39:19 [JC]
Got it
16:40:00 [fjh]
16:40:48 [dom]
(settings work for expressing your preference, but doesn't work for reacting to permissions request AFAICT)
16:40:57 [ArtB]
ArtB has left #privacy
16:42:59 [fjh]
what is the incentive to obtain implementation?
16:43:01 [npdoty]
rigo: some research experience from PrimeLife about UI, that footsteps are very recognizable
16:43:07 [rigo]
RW: organize Workshop between the DAP and other WGs and the Privacy community
16:43:24 [fjh]
maybe that is a rhetorical question.
16:43:37 [rigo]
I think we could organize one in Sophia
16:44:26 [npdoty]
q+ to mention November workshop
16:44:30 [rigo]
ack ri
16:44:31 [dom]
(I think a workshop in Sillicon Valley might actually be better to attract e.g. browser vendors)
16:44:52 [rigo]
16:44:57 [rigo]
ack npdoty
16:44:57 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to mention November workshop
16:45:06 [JC]
What do we do where there is inadequate regulation?
16:46:07 [rigo]
ND: wanted to talk about the workshop question. We are having a workshop end of November in Berkeley, Mostly taling about discussing about what to do after DNT, but may be one opportunity for people in the valley to discuss
16:46:08 [fjh]
that is the next logical question
16:46:32 [rigo]
JC, I would start with tears
16:46:40 [dom]
(I personally don't think that regulation is the only reward; making the Web a better dev platform is a pretty strong motivation for a number of vendors)
16:47:05 [rigo]
zakim, take up next agendum
16:47:05 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Coordinating and delivering privacy reviews of draft W3C specifications" taken up [from rigo]
16:47:11 [dom]
[thanks for inviting me, I'll be going now]
16:47:14 [fjh]
customers do value privacy I
16:47:18 [npdoty]
thx dom!
16:47:23 [Zakim]
16:47:26 [tara]
Much thanks, Dom!
16:47:32 [npdoty]
I think a lot of people in the community can benefit directly from consumer trust in the Web platform
16:47:35 [spreibus]
Many thanks, Dom.
16:47:35 [Kboudaou]
Thanks dom !
16:47:45 [rigo]
Navigation timing and Web intents suggested
16:47:47 [Zakim]
16:48:00 [rigo]
navigation timeing:
16:48:09 [npdoty]
Web Cryptography has just published a first draft
16:48:17 [rigo]
Web Intents:
16:48:56 [rigo]
CR: before going into this, wanted to discuss procedure more generally and how to organize review in a timely fashion
16:49:03 [Zakim]
16:49:05 [npdoty]
16:49:13 [fjh]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:49:20 [MacTed]
16:49:21 [rigo]
ack npdo
16:49:27 [Zakim]
fjh, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: npdoty (69%)
16:49:32 [tara]
No - just got kicked off Skype. Back now!
16:50:15 [rigo]
ND: generally it would be great if we could do this. If htere are documents we can provide input to. In IETF the IAB has provided insight, there were lots of requests, but no right expertise in the WG, so faded away.
16:50:35 [fjh]
16:50:43 [rigo]
... we might want to make sure that we only work on documents where we have time and people
16:51:18 [rigo]
FJH: one intention with web intents is that once you trust the origin the privacy barriers go low. Highlight it here
16:51:22 [rigo]
ack fjh
16:51:36 [fjh]
16:51:42 [rigo]
CR: thanks for explanation, not visible from title
16:51:43 [npdoty]
I think just documenting the different concepts we have around trust for particular origins would be worthwhile
16:52:04 [npdoty]
in some groups, we've been referring to an origin-pair as a useful privacy concept
16:52:08 [rigo]
CR: Introducing request wanted to ask for someone working on this
16:52:35 [fjh]
s/Highlight it here/This is related to explicit intents in WebIntents for example./
16:53:08 [npdoty]
for Web Intents and Navigation Timing, do we have volunteers to help?
16:53:26 [npdoty]
I might be able to review on Web Intents, though I have limited time
16:53:49 [npdoty]
if someone wants me to help and wants to help me with that :)
16:54:07 [rigo]
CR: if this an issue of expertise? Or is is it generally to get involved in privacy reviews?
16:54:16 [rigo]
... no answer
16:54:24 [npdoty]
move this discussion to the mailing list, +1
16:54:25 [rigo]
lets move this discussion to the mailing - list
16:54:36 [npdoty]
Zakim, next agendum
16:54:36 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Proposed candidates for PING review" taken up [from npdoty]
16:54:49 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 5
16:54:49 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Privacy considerations" taken up [from npdoty]
16:55:23 [rigo]
CR: we had discussion in August on Privacy considerations and could include the issues that Dom raised.
16:55:35 [rigo]
16:56:02 [fjh]
16:56:08 [JoeHallCDT]
the wall is listening, Rigo, unclear how to respond (talking for myself)
16:56:08 [rigo]
ack fjh
16:56:52 [npdoty]
I think we may have a different group of people on the call this time than last time
16:56:52 [Fred]
Hello all, thank you for the invitation. Is the CSP spec. something you think needs a review?
16:56:59 [rigo]
FJH: one issue is privacy in general. Should do "something" but has no normative impact.
16:57:20 [rigo]
Fred, rather web intent is the most urgent
16:57:42 [rigo]
CR: everybody tired but you get homework
16:57:56 [npdoty]
25 October for the next call? any conflicts?
16:58:01 [rigo]
.. 25 Oct for a call
16:58:06 [spreibus]
fine with me
16:58:06 [fjh]
s/Fred, rather web intent is the most urgent//
16:58:13 [JoeHallCDT]
16:58:14 [Kboudaou]
fine for me
16:58:24 [npdoty]
and it's just before TPAC
16:58:37 [npdoty]
18 October?
16:58:59 [tara]
25 is not optimall, but okay.
16:59:08 [tara]
Um optimal. either!
16:59:13 [rigo]
18 October is the next call!
16:59:15 [spreibus]
apologies for 18 Oct.
16:59:20 [fjh]
regrets, 18 COt
16:59:26 [fjh]
16:59:29 [npdoty]
18 October, any other major conflicts?
16:59:31 [fjh]
16:59:43 [Kboudaou]
me too: will not available on 18 oct.
17:00:28 [rigo]
CR: for homework, watrch for mail from Nick on Workshop in November. Would be good if we could develop a list of issues to discuss. Also should discuss requests for review from other groups. First is navigation timing and web intents
17:00:47 [rigo]
... should continue discussion on privacy considerations on mailing list
17:00:51 [rigo]
17:01:01 [spreibus]
many thanks and bye bye -- see you on the mailing list
17:01:01 [rigo]
CR: Adjourned
17:01:04 [Zakim]
17:01:08 [Kboudaou]
17:01:09 [fjh]
17:01:09 [Zakim]
17:01:14 [Zakim]
17:01:15 [Zakim]
17:01:15 [Zakim]
17:01:16 [Zakim]
17:01:16 [Zakim]
17:01:16 [Zakim]
17:01:17 [Zakim]
17:01:20 [tara]
tara has left #privacy
17:01:23 [Zakim]
17:01:25 [rigo]
rrsagent, set log public
17:01:29 [JoeHallCDT]
JoeHallCDT has left #privacy
17:01:33 [rigo]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:01:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate rigo
17:01:44 [rigo]
nick, will you link them from the PING page?
17:01:50 [spreibus]
spreibus has left #privacy
17:02:33 [ebw]
ebw has left #privacy
17:02:33 [fjh]
s|s/Fred, rather web intent is the most urgent//||
17:02:42 [fjh]
rragent, generate minutes
17:02:43 [rigo]
if the script already executed I can't but I can do manual edits. Will do
17:02:45 [Zakim]
17:02:58 [smarthart]
smarthart has joined #privacy
17:03:02 [fjh]
s|rragent, generate minutes||
17:03:16 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:03:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fjh
17:03:46 [rigo]
Now I know why I'm the lawyer and you the engineer :)
17:04:32 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:04:32 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +, Rigo, npdoty, fjh, spreibus, +1.510.701.aadd, tara, Dom, [Microsoft], joehall, Karima_Boudaoud, +1.207.756.aaee,
17:04:35 [Zakim]
... christine, dsinger, MacTed
17:05:27 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:05:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:06:42 [npdoty]
Zakim, bye
17:06:42 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were +, Rigo, npdoty, fjh, spreibus, +1.510.701.aadd, tara, Dom, [Microsoft], joehall, Karima_Boudaoud, +1.207.756.aaee,
17:06:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #privacy
17:06:46 [Zakim]
... christine, dsinger, MacTed
17:06:49 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
17:06:49 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items