Mailing lists service

" type="cite">P3P obviously wasn't that, but it was thinking in that direction. (I use the past tense, but it sounds like there's life in the project?)

~ Jon

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:16 PM, TJ McDonald < "> > wrote:

As Doc said, I don’t want to be told, I want to tell and have it universally accepted.  

 

TJ McDonald

POWDER — the Protocol for Web Description Resources — provides a mechanism to describe and discover Web resources and helps the users to make a decision whether a given resource is of interest. There are a variety of use cases: from providing a better means to describing Web resources and creating trustmarks to aiding content discovery, child protection and Semantic Web searches.

hhalpin: unclarity of privacy policy phrasing

<hhalpin> harry: can we cluster privacy practices?

Soren: it was hard to distinguish clusters

<hhalpin> harry: due to privacy policy?

Soren: it's hard to see prevalent practices

Joseph: we might try to diff the privacy texts, to see the %age of wording reuse

<hhalpin> And POWDER?

<hhalpin> P3P hasn't taken off.

<FabGandon> beleives Lorry Cranor did a lot on that subject indeed when working on P3P

Soren: P3P was designed to communicate privacy policies, but less than 10% of the sites implement P3P
... and some are doing it wrong

harry: is it doable to present a human-readable privacy policy?

Soren: several projects going this way

<AndreaP> POWDER might be good if you would like to state which are the privacy policies adopted by a given set of resources.

Soren: it's worth investigating
... also somewhere where W3C could step in

Harry: I'm interested in links to these projects?
Soren: I will try to put something together

<tinkster> Perhaps a cut-down dialect of P3P in RDFa might increase update? I think danbri was looking at something like that.

harry: Can we use some of your results in the XG?

Soren: yes, publicly available

<hhalpin> that was a pretty hacky list :)

Mischa: .... list of SN

<hhalpin> should blogging be under social networking?

Joseph: we did look at some of the ones you have on your list

<tinkster> danbri, while you were gone I said: Perhaps a cut-down dialect of P3P in RDFa might increase update? I think danbri was looking at something like that.

<hhalpin> soren: youtube, blogger, take off

Joseph: youtube not really a SN
... friends' communication is limited

harry: whatever has a friends list could be a SNS

<hhalpin> soren: Gmail is pretty huge social network

<hhalpin> mischa: gmail using facebook connect

Mischa: there's a connect between facebook and gmail

Joseph: 2 ideas in textual analysis of policies
... identify reuse of boilerplate text
... difficulty to read
... it might also be interesting to identify relevant dimensions of a privacy policy
... and see how they differ

<melvster> in the uk i believe they have to give you all the data they have on you, but you need to pay a small fee

Joseph: for some observations you need a real account

harry: the study is very educational
... interested in discussion on the mailing list

<tinkster> melvster, organisations have the right to charge a £10 fee for gathering, printing and sending your data, but many will waive that.

<hhalpin> Call adjourned

You mention it as a possible vector for user wishlists (what the VRM crowd might call "personal RFPs").  That's an interesting possibility.  If this info is public, it could be made available at an unprotected resource.  If not, it could perhaps be UMA-protected...?

Here's another idea, just sort of riffing...

If businesses are already starting to use this to make their offerings accessible in a machine-readable way, that's a good sign that the barrier to deployment by "potential UMA requesters" is low.  And maybe if things like privacy policies of a business are considered useful "competitive information" to list (hey, if opening hours are listed, why not this?), maybe it's an opening for the P3P-based (or similar) ontologies as well.  And then it's perhaps a shorter leap to imagine our terms negotiation use cases actually working.

I lean toward "fourth party" as a label, because the first, second and third are already taken. But I have reservations. I'm my own first person, my own first party. Relative to me, the second party is the seller.

But I'd rather not try to change everything at once. "Fourth party", as a classification for user-driven services, sounds like a pretty cool new category, and a place where a vast new marketplace can open up, serving customers first. For real this time.

" type="cite">

---

From: " target="_blank"> [mailto: " target="_blank"> ] On Behalf Of Jon Lebkowsky
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:51 AM
To: " target="_blank">
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] "I am not a brand."

 

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Matteo Brunati < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I'm in contact with Massimo Marchiori, the editor of the P3P W3C Standard. [1], to make something that not reivent the whell.

 Pleased to see the reference to P3P. For those on the list who don't know what P3P (Platform for Privacay Preferences) is about and why it's a wheel we should avoid reinventing, it's worthwhile to follow Matteo's link [1] and read for a while. Here's a piece:

P3P version 1.0 is a protocol designed to inform Web users of the data-collection practices of Web sites. It provides a way for a Web site to encode its data-collection and data-use practices in a machine-readable XML format known as a P3P policy. The P3P specification defines:

• A standard schema for data a Web site may wish to collect, known as the "P3P base data schema"
• A standard set of uses, recipients, data categories, and other privacy disclosures
• An XML format for expressing a privacy policy
• A means of associating privacy policies with Web pages or sites, and cookies
• A mechanism for transporting P3P policies over HTTP

The goal of P3P version 1.0 is twofold. First, it allows Web sites to present their data-collection practices in a standardized, machine-readable, easy-to-locate manner. Second, it enables Web users to understand what data will be collected by sites they visit, how that data will be used, and what data/uses they may "opt-out" of or "opt-in" to.

 

~ Jon


--
Jon Lebkowsky
+1 512.762-6547
website: http://weblogsky.com

twitter: http://twitter.com/jonl
facebook: http://facebook.com/jonlebkowsky
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/jonlebkowsky