Subject: Re: [Geopriv] W3C geolocation WG

From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:38:57 +0200

[sorry for the late reply]

> I have thought about this in the past. I think a good starting point
> would be the notification/verification approach that 3GPP defines for
> devices (and which SUPL has just picked up in version 2.0). A 
> browser is
> a device as much as a handset is and the same considerations apply.
> 
> The user is notified when a location request is made and the location
> request does not proceed unless the user verifies that it's permitted.
> This can be accomplished in various slick ways on a browser interface.
> 
> Users do turn features on/off per site these days - pop-up blocking
> being the prime example. Memorizing passwords on a per-site basis is
> another example.

I totally agree on the points above. It is also very likely that there
will be some granularity on the information that the user is willing to
give to a certain web site. For example, i might want to provide the
exact location to a pizza delivery service (or paramedics), while i
might want to reveal just the city / country that i'm currently to my
social network site. That might also require some forward/reverse
geocoding, for example:

- device acquires location via GPS
- social network site requests location
- user decides to reveal city information
- device reverse geocodes location
- device submits city information to social network

I think we should definitely keep an eye on those developments, because
imho the number of location transactions as indicated above is very
likely to outnumber the "emergency calling" cases by at least an order
of two magnitudes.

Alex
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:05:00 -0400

Hannes,

Picking back up on a thread from a few weeks ago, I think that it 
would make sense for Geoprivers to discuss the W3C activity at the 
next IETF.  I will not be able to make it to Minnesota, but my 
colleague Alissa Cooper will be there and could participate.  If this 
is going to happen, we collectively need to figure out a date and 
time.   Would the Sunday before IETF work?

Alissa and I will be participating in the W3C group -- raising 
privacy concerns -- but I certainly hope that others from Geopriv 
will also be able to be involved.  Let's pick this conversation back 
up to figure out a game plan.

John Morris

At 9:10 AM +0300 9/25/08, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>I wonder whether it would make sense to spend some face-to-face time 
>discussing these aspects at the next IETF meeting. Since we need a 
>bit more time (and a whiteboard) we could schedule a separate 
>session.
>
>In 2004 some folks organized a sort of workshop to discuss HIP and 
>Future Internet related aspects on the Saturday before the IETF 
>meeting, see http://hiprg.piuha.net/workshop/
>Maybe we could do something similar.
>
>To keep the discussions a bit more structured and to make sure that 
>participants actually thought about the topic a small "paper" had to 
>be submitted (a sort of position statement). Here is, for example, 
>my paper from the workshop in 2004: 
>http://hiprg.piuha.net/workshop/tschofenig_middlebox_traversal.pdf
>
>Would this be something useful?
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>
>Dawson, Martin wrote:
>>devices (and which SUPL has just picked up in version 2.0). A browser is
>>I can imagine that W3C would advise that full notification/verification
>>is the assumed mode that the browser adopts and the user can voluntarily
>>reduce this to just notification or completely transparent depending on
>>the nature of the site and their relationship with it.
>>
>>I don't want to anticipate what their conclusion will be though. This is
>>the job they'd be undertaking. I'm glad they are looking at it.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Martin
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>>Behalf Of James M. Polk
>>Sent: Thursday, 25 September 2008 3:39 AM
>>To: John Morris
>>Cc: GEOPRIV
>>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] W3C geolocation WG
>>
>>normally, when a user uses a browser, they don't turn on or off 
>>features per site they connect to. With this in mind, how exactly 
>>is privacy supposed to be maintained other than having a browser 
>>location conveyance turned off?
>>
>>At 11:01 AM 9/24/2008, John Morris wrote:
>>
>>>FWIW, we are members of W3C and Alissa Cooper and I plan to 
>>>participate in the new WG there....  We'd be interested in 
>>>thinking through concrete messages (such as the below) to take to 
>>>that group....
>>>
>>>John Morris
>>>
>>>At 7:02 PM -0500 9/23/08, James M. Polk wrote:
>>>
>>>>At 06:58 PM 9/23/2008, Dawson, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I suggest our first goal should be to ensure that they adopt PIDF-LO
>>>>>
>>as
>>
>>>>>the data-type to minimize the risk of unnecessary transcoding.
>>>>>
>>>>this point is part of the reason I am asking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Martin
>>>>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>>contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. 
>>If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>>immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
>>this email is prohibited.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>[mf2]
>>