Joe, Sure. Content wise we don’t disagree. I ment for ‘access control’ (parent) to include ‘usage control’ (child). But we might as well state that ‘control’ has two subtypes. On the other hand the EC data directive talks about “protection & control” of personal data One could argue that ‘usage control’ refers more to ‘protection’ and ‘access control’ more to ‘control’ Anyway we need both and the EC data directive had both included since 1995. This year the European Commission will propose a review of the 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). This will result in a new general legal framework for the protection and control of personal data adapted to the Internet age, covering data processing operations in all sectors and policies of the EU. This legal framework is envisioned to include the following topics: 1. Personal data management by users, requiring policy makers to shift their focus 2. Personal data processing by Social networks must go must go hand in hand with the necessary respect for personal data 3. Strengthen individuals' rights by giving them a high level of protection and control over their own data and about how and by whom their data is collected and processed 4. "Right to be forgotten," : the right to have your data fully removed when it is no longer needed for the purposes for which it was collected. (i.e. for deleting profiles on social networking sites the service provider can be relied upon to remove personal data completely). 5. Users’ right2know a. how your Internet use is being monitored for the purposes of behavioural advertising. b. when online retailers use previously viewed web sites as a basis to make product suggestions. c. how to access, rectify or delete your data. Exercise these rights for free and without constraints. d. when your personal data has been unlawfully accessed, altered or destroyed by unauthorised persons. (Obligation to notify personal data breaches beyond the currently covered telecommunications sector will be extended to other areas, such as the financial industry) 6. Data controllers are to implement effective policies to ensure compliance with the EU data protection rules, such as : a. appointing Data Protection Officers b. carrying out Privacy Impact Assessments c. applying a “Privacy by Design” approach 7. Review of the 2006 Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC), concerning the type and amount of data necessary for security reasons and whether the length of time that authorities can hold data is appropriate. 8. Tighten current procedures for international data transfers, including the so-called "adequacy procedure”, which verifies that a third country ensures an "adequate" level of protection of personal data. Regards, Luk Vervenne Synergetics NV/SA
Van: Joe Andrieu [mailto:
] Luk, Joe Andrieu "> +1 (805) 705-8651
1 and 2 can be compressed (without losing meaning) into : you have full access control over you data. While doing you also avoid using the data ownership issue. You don’t own many of ‘your’ data elements, but you do control who gets to see them. Luk Vervenne Synergetics NV/SA
Van: Gon Zifroni [
">mailto:
] Devon hi, Yes and no, it seems to me like a potential leak. Since it is a construction built on trust, if you decide to trust a second (vendor) or third (platform, right?) party with the same privileges as the fourth party then yes, but you clearly entrust it with your data. Even if it is granular typically you'll have repeat interactions (subsequent or at a later time). i.e. By trusting the second or third party for that role of managing your identity (who you are) and data (what I do, who I know, where I am, where I go, what I like, what I buy, what I want, etc) you open up to tracking and profiling based on repeat exchanges (not just transactions I believe). How did you see it though? I was also thinking of the PGP architecture. Gon On 16 Jun 2011, at 11:07, Devon Loffreto wrote: Ill submit an edit: First part #7 = 4th parties can be first, second and third parties, but can only authenticate one role per transaction. Devon Loffreto On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Gon Zifroni <
" target="_blank">
> wrote: Hi list, I've been following silently for the last year and took part in IIW 11 last year. I'm not sure if I got everything right with the terminology, but from what I can synthesize it seems to me we're talking about a system like so: In a VRM system... 1. your data is private 2. your data is yours 3. only fourth parties get only temporary access to shares of your data 4. third and second parties never get access to your data, the second trusts the third and the third trusts the fourth. 5. fourth parties of your choosing share your data for you 6. only fourth parties can be polled on your behalf 7. fourth parties can not be third parties too Let me flesh this out a little bit further: 1. TOS, your data is your legal private property 2. You are the only one who has complete access to all of your data. Even if it is in the cloud, you are the only one authorized full access at any given time. 3. Only fourth parties are allowed to get and index only portions of your data, and you can set for how long that data is retained. 4. They can index it along with other people's data so they can be queried by third and second parties. The query is not a query for data but a query for matching people. The fourth party only returns to third parties the number of matching people not their identity nor data about them. Second parties can connect with first parties via the current fourth party. 5. In terms of data storage and indexing it is a federated system like email whereby you can choose your fourth party and have several for different kind of data if you choose for it, jsut like people have several email accounts. 6. see 4. 7. Fourth parties cannot make use of your data. I'm not sure if this is exactly the logic but I thought, given the Google Wallet discussion (I think it'd be a mistake to let it aggregate, index and know about all of your transactions, see 7), that it is a good moment to zoom in and draft an architecture that by its nature keeps data private while maintining certain level of flexibility and performance. Disclosure: my background is in industrial design and architecture (housing). I moved to SF to start a LBS with a group of engineers. I'm sure this can be further compressed into 3 or 4 basic rules that qualify any VRM system. Gon On 16 Jun 2011, at 03:29, Katherine Warman Kern wrote: +1
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.