18:03:35 RRSAgent has joined #auto 18:03:35 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/30-auto-irc 18:03:37 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:03:38 Meeting: Automotive Working Group Teleconference 18:03:41 Chair: Peter 18:03:45 Scribe: Ted 18:03:49 Agenda+ Issues 18:03:54 agenda+ AOB 18:03:58 Present+ Ted 18:04:08 Present+ Ulf, Adnan, Arman, Peter, Ted. Glenn 18:04:20 Present+ Gunnar 18:09:07 Topic: Lobbying Membership for Charter approval 18:09:24 Ted: @@1 18:10:49 zakim, next agendum 18:10:49 agendum 1 -- Issues -- taken up [from ted] 18:10:59 Issue 378 18:11:39 Peter: privacy does not apply to all use cases. we for instance are using this API ourselves within Volvo vehicles 18:12:04 … the open source reference implementation is being considered for future hardware 18:13:24 Ted: we can also perhaps go so far as to say privacy concerns are irrelevant if information doesn't leave the vehicle 18:15:40 Glenn: the specification doesn't touch on concerns around jurisdictional privacy requirements 18:19:26 Ulf: key point is whether information if offboarded. once off, there isn't really anything that can be done in the vehicle to change that 18:21:06 Ted: it is possible if using something like Isaac's proxy reencryption suggestion, gives data owner rights that can be modified after off-boarded 18:21:52 Glenn: it would be nice if the vehicle owner can select stream of data provided to a given consumer, different sets for insurance, mechanic, etc 18:22:00 … I would like to see that in the specification 18:22:42 Peter: is that really part of VISS or responsibility of app interacting with it? 18:23:07 Ulf: that will be complicated 18:33:15 Ted to strike last sentence wrt regional privacy laws and add privacy concerns may be irrelevant depending on application use of information, whether anything is sent off the vehicle or otherwise tracked 18:34:59 Peter: someone could argue privacy concerns exist for information remaining on vehicle based on how it is used 18:35:20 Gunnar: GDPR has various phrasing like legitimate interest that is very carefully worded 18:35:47 … may be worth enlisting some expertise around that 18:42:52 Issue 373@@ 18:42:57 PR @@ 18:43:28 Ulf: this could be described in a policy document, bound to the roles 18:43:49 … roles are extendable even though we haven't said so 18:44:02 … we could bind further restrictions to roles 18:44:37 … it could either be a formal part of the specification or describe how implementers can handle in best practices 18:44:58 Glenn: the way we implement our Go devices, you go to the app and set the geofence parameters in privacy mode 18:45:12 … it may be more a feature of the app than in spec 18:48:55 Ted: how complicated is creating geofence, city/county/draw a shape? 18:49:01 Glenn: all of the above 18:51:58 Ted: if a radius, calculated based on center point, city/county would be lookup... 18:52:16 Glenn: we represent with simply coordinates 18:52:42 Ulf: I was thinking if we include in the spec, we would need to define this language 18:53:12 … this may be beyond our expertise. there may well be languages that do so already 18:53:29 … might be better not to formalize in the spec but leave in best practices initially 18:53:37 … or at least non-normative 18:53:40 Glenn: I agree 18:54:06 … we will need an interface and some OEM are looking at allowing apps in 18:56:12 Ted: I will reach out and update issue to indicate relegate to BP doc for now, spec if we can crystalize definitions for parameters 18:57:07 Glenn: based on various polutions concerns, geofence can also be used to encourage a hybrid to operate in EV mode - eg city of London 19:01:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/30-auto-minutes.html ted