Privacy Interest Group (PING) review #204
Comments
|
For the record: see also the extra commen of Joseph Lorenzo Hall: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Apr/0036.html |
|
That's @gregnorc, btw. (I'm from cdt.org too) |
|
Re deletion: Yes, you can use HTTP DELETE to delete Annotations. Re HTTPS: we should add a recommendation in a security considerations. I personally expect that all create/update/delete operations will be done over HTTPS, but we should be explicit. Re opt-out: I disagree with this one. It would be like saying that an external web site can't link to your site. Robots.txt doesn't prevent linking, it advertises preferences regarding crawling. |
+1 |
The issue of harassment, and what to do about it, is more complex and I am not sure that a single step (like some opt-out mechanism) is the right solution. (And, to be clear, I do not have the right answer either). @azaroth42 's reaction is absolutely valid and just shows that this issue is more general. I believe finding the right solution would require much more discussion, involving the community at large, and I do not think this Working Group is in position to make a decision right now. A hasty step, like introducing an opt-out approach, may do more harm than good overall if we are not careful. My proposal would be not to make any technical changes on the documents now, continue the discussion in this group and elsewhere, and possibly add some extra features later (eg, version 2) when we have a consensus on a clearer approach. Otherwise this would fatally delay this group's work. Note that there will be a panel discussion at I Annotate, right after the upcoming F2F meeting in Berlin. That may help in clarifying the possible options. |
|
"The issue of harassment" is about publication, not annotation. Annotation is initially a singular, personal action (it may stay in your browser, or in that book you bought last year). Until you publish it, your evil side notes don't effect anyone and can't therefore be consider "harassment." Once published, however, the story changes. Publication spaces (i.e. annotation social networks such as Genius and Hypothes.is) come with (necessary) community guidelines. One of those could (and usually do) include "un-publishing" and/or moderating annotations that run afoul of those guidelines. The user's right to annotate however should not be prohibited, though their ability to publish may be curtailed based on the guidelines set by the specific publisher. At the very least, we need to keep the act of "annotating" separate from the act of "publishing." |
|
What @BigBlueHat said, and even more to the point, whether a published annotation is displayed in context of the target content. |
|
Another way to think about this distinction: "Publishing" is the act of making something "Public" to some group, i.e. "Known" to that group. So, preferences that page owners might signal to annotation services probably should revolve probably primarily around the notion of publishing-- just as @BigBlueHat has indicated. In other words, it doesn't make sense for a page owner to say "You can't make a personal annotation here", because no one else will know about that annotation, we can't and shouldn't try to limit people's freedom to record and think for personal purposes (special note of curiosity: some fora, such as special viewing rooms inside congress for highly sensitive documents do restrict the ability to bring writing implements in) if for no other reason than that there are plenty of ways to do that. When you annotate personally, you are indeed annotating and not publishing. A curious middle ground is around groups. I asked one of our interviewees recently about whether page owners should have a voice in whether their content was annotated within private group, since clearly that should be ok, right? She pointed me to the example of "Slam Books", which are (or were) apparently a thing in grade school, and potentially wider places. The point was that even when things are discussed in private groups, they often can be damaging-- even if the target of that discussion is never aware of the specific contents of the discussion. I don't have a personal conclusion here (and obviously my preferences run towards freedoms and not restrictions), but I just wanted to note that this was an interesting consideration that I hadn't thought of before. |
|
A bit more. "The issue of harassment" is about (harassing) publication about someone On another note, its about finding these publications. Imagine the On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:28 PM, BigBlueHat notifications@github.com
|
|
Discussed at F2F, 18.05.16: Add a recommendation for HTTPS into the protocol spec |
|
Re deletion: Yes, you can use HTTP DELETE to delete Annotations. That sub-issue is therefore closed |
|
Per opt-out issue: Discussed at F2F, 18.05.16, We will defer work on signalling mechanisms regarding opt-out of annotation to a future version of the specifications |
|
Closing, making a new more specific editor action for recommending HTTPS in Protocol... |
plehegar
added
privacy-tracker
(This review came in via email, sent by Greg Norcie gnorcie@cdt.org. I have copied the text to the issue with only formatting changes. IH.)
Hi all,
Ivan Herman reached out to PING to share a trio of documents relating to the Web Annotation model:
Together, these documents propose a way for “annotation servers” to be set up, which can manage and store annotations about websites.
To start off, I wanted to list off some high level takeaways I gathered. I have also included a run through of the PING privacy questionnaire[4] I developed.
In addition to these high level takeaways, below I have walked through the PING Privacy Questionnaire and included my responses. I encourage other standards developers to consider using the self questionnaire - and I welcome feedback on how this questionnaire can better help spec authors perform privacy audits:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: