15:54:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #privacy
15:54:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-privacy-irc
15:54:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 263
15:54:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #privacy
15:54:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:54:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:54:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Privacy Interest Group Teleconference
15:54:33 <trackbot> Date: 17 September 2015
15:54:35 <npdoty> rrsagent, make logs public
15:54:37 <npdoty> chair: tara
15:55:49 <npdoty> Zakim, clear agenda
15:55:49 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:55:58 <npdoty> agenda+ welcome and introductions
15:56:12 <npdoty> agenda+ fingerprinting guidance to group note
15:56:19 <npdoty> agenda+ privacy and security questionnaire
15:56:34 <npdoty> agenda+ AOB
15:57:26 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy
15:57:31 <JoeHallCDT> ah
15:58:14 <tara> Thanks!
15:58:23 <tara> You on the phone/Webex?
15:58:36 <JoeHallCDT> will be soon
15:59:43 <christine> christine has joined #privacy
16:00:08 <JoeHallCDT> it's very quiet
16:00:11 <JoeHallCDT> heh
16:00:39 <npdoty> present+ npdoty, runnegar, tara, JoeHallCDT, LCPolan
16:01:36 <tara> I can hear you!
16:01:43 <npdoty> scribenick: JoeHallCDT
16:02:14 <tara> We're just getting the phone side set up...
16:06:01 <JoeHallCDT> christine: let's get started
16:06:19 <JoeHallCDT> tara: no intros as we're all familiar with one another
16:06:26 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 2
16:06:26 <Zakim> agendum 2. "fingerprinting guidance to group note" taken up [from npdoty]
16:06:36 <JoeHallCDT> tara: fingerprinting as a group note?
16:06:45 <npdoty> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0121.html
16:06:46 <christine> +q
16:06:55 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: sent out a msg in August about status of fpr document
16:07:01 <JoeHallCDT> … have resolved major document TODOs
16:07:11 <JoeHallCDT> … now complete, not perfect but not missing
16:07:20 <JoeHallCDT> … hoping to publish as a draft WG note
16:07:35 <JoeHallCDT> … will signal that has some support from PING
16:07:41 <JoeHallCDT> … and that it's stable enough for feedback
16:07:59 <JoeHallCDT> christine: totally agree that's what we should do...
16:08:05 <JoeHallCDT> … hoping wendy would be on the call
16:08:19 <npdoty> q+ on process
16:08:21 <JoeHallCDT> … what are the mechanisms to do that
16:08:31 <JoeHallCDT> … have some editorial comments but haven't finished yet
16:08:36 <JoeHallCDT> … will do so in the next couple of days
16:08:36 <npdoty> ack christine
16:08:52 <JoeHallCDT> … goal would be to produce the final version as a PING group note by the end of the year
16:08:59 <tara> ack np
16:08:59 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to comment on process
16:09:04 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: on process, I can probably answer
16:09:20 <JoeHallCDT> … different WGs handle consensus differently… but chairs are the ones that judge consensus
16:09:24 <christine> +q
16:09:32 <JoeHallCDT> … can do over email "please note objections/concerns by x date"
16:09:42 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:09:49 <tara> ack ch
16:09:54 <JoeHallCDT> christine: feeling is that the consensus would be that we should do this
16:10:04 <JoeHallCDT> … not enough people on this call to say we have consensus right now
16:10:46 <JoeHallCDT> (Katie joined, christine got her up to speed)
16:11:13 <JoeHallCDT> … should do it over email
16:11:31 <JoeHallCDT> … question: the email list has a population of people that is massive… bigger than formal PING group
16:12:00 <JoeHallCDT> tara: has to be of PING members
16:12:17 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: we haven't had to make a sharp distinction between mailing list and signing forms to be members
16:12:28 <tara> ack joe
16:12:31 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
16:12:49 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: Christine, sounds like your goal is a Note by the end of the year that's no longer draft status?
16:12:53 <npdoty> christine: yes.
16:13:06 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: what is a member/participant?
16:13:26 <npdoty> ... formal, vs public where anyone can sign up on the mailing list
16:14:04 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: members of the w3c are dues payers
16:14:09 <JoeHallCDT> … participants in groups like PING
16:14:17 <JoeHallCDT> … members of w3c and public people
16:14:38 <JoeHallCDT> … in order to be a formal member of the group you have to be a w3c member or an invited expert
16:14:49 <npdoty> scribenick: JoeHallCDT
16:15:13 <JoeHallCDT> christine: tara, we have an action item to do the call for consensus on the email list and publish the note as a draft
16:15:21 <JoeHallCDT> … presume the usual period is 2 weeks
16:15:41 <wseltzer> regrets+ wseltzer
16:15:42 <JoeHallCDT> tara: and we'll wait until  christine is done with editorial contribusions
16:16:06 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: have gotten a few comments from the mailing list or offlist
16:16:13 <JoeHallCDT> … might want to start using github issue tracker
16:16:15 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:16:45 <tara> GitHub for PING?
16:16:55 <tara> Is in the W3C account
16:17:09 <JoeHallCDT> tara: thanks a ton, npdoty!
16:17:16 <npdoty> thanks all for the feedback
16:17:23 <JoeHallCDT> … very grateful for moving this forward, we're proud of this accomplishment
16:17:31 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 3
16:17:31 <Zakim> agendum 3. "privacy and security questionnaire" taken up [from npdoty]
16:17:46 <JoeHallCDT> tara: now we're on to privacy and security questionnaire
16:17:52 <npdoty> present+ KatieHS
16:17:58 <christine> +q
16:18:08 <JoeHallCDT> tara: have quite a lot of work done by CDT
16:18:11 <JoeHallCDT> -q
16:18:35 <JoeHallCDT> christine: reiterate that Joe and Greg have done a spectacular job of moving this forward
16:18:45 <JoeHallCDT> … on my list to do a read through and comment and additions
16:19:05 <JoeHallCDT> … what we need to think about is how can we at least get to the stage of giving consensus input from PING to the TAG
16:19:22 <JoeHallCDT> … and get to the point to publish a draft note on our complimentary document that would go into more detail
16:19:46 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #privacy
16:19:48 <JoeHallCDT> … TAG's goal is to have a succinct questionnairre, but we see value in having a document that gives context for the items in the questionnaire
16:19:58 <JoeHallCDT> … if we can do that this year, that would be a good thing to do
16:20:09 <tara> ack ch
16:20:19 <JoeHallCDT> … we have TPAC coming up, maybe the plan should be to have a meeting on that Friday (maybe just the morning) to push this forward as a group
16:20:20 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
16:20:21 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:20:34 <npdoty> q+
16:20:40 <npdoty> ack JoeHallCDT
16:20:41 <tara> Boo!
16:20:50 <tara> (to no CDT folks. But we understand.)
16:20:54 <christine> q+
16:20:54 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: CDT folks won't be in attendance at TPAC
16:20:57 <tara> I will have a speakerphone.
16:21:00 <npdoty> ... could participate remotely?
16:21:11 <tara> I tried to ensure remote folks could join.
16:21:44 <npdoty> ... have been working to pull out the privacy stuff to have a distinct questionnaire. mkwest: it would be really great to contribute that back to the TAG document
16:21:54 <npdoty> ... to what extent do we want to have a PING-maintained privacy questionnaire?
16:22:20 <npdoty> ... vs. just giving feedback to the TAG on their questionnaire, and maintaining a document of contextual support
16:22:30 <npdoty> ... think we shouldn't combine privacy and security too closely
16:23:05 <npdoty> ... doing privacy reviews and making sure there is feedback to the questionnaire based on those reviews
16:23:18 <npdoty> ... for example, Greg has done that with the Presentation API experience
16:23:44 <npdoty> ... do we have other requests to do privacy reviews? a working understanding is most useful
16:24:59 <npdoty> ... Greg's email has meta questions about the questionnaire
16:25:19 <npdoty> tara: +1, useful to try out the questionnaire with reviews
16:25:19 <JoeHallCDT> tara: very beneficial to get experience reviewing documents with this one
16:25:36 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: we should look at Greg's Presentations API email
16:25:40 <tara> ack np
16:25:59 <JoeHallCDT> … would be happy to have this merged with the security document that the TAG is working on
16:26:14 <JoeHallCDT> … having one document means it's more likely that people will use it
16:26:22 <JoeHallCDT> … and being TAG, people will pay attention to it
16:26:29 <JoeHallCDT> … so fine with having one document
16:26:40 <JoeHallCDT> … would like to do anything we can to get the feedback to tAG
16:26:42 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:26:51 <JoeHallCDT> … whatever we need to do to get that feedback
16:27:03 <JoeHallCDT> christine: what we need to do is have another conversation with TAG
16:27:18 <JoeHallCDT> … what's the best way that both pieces of work get good traction
16:27:23 <tara> ack chr
16:27:32 <JoeHallCDT> … the second screen working group have reached out to us
16:27:40 <JoeHallCDT> … will be having privacy discussion at TPAC in their own meeting
16:28:03 <JoeHallCDT> … if we can do a bit more work on our document, about what we think is important for the S&P questionnaire
16:28:15 <JoeHallCDT> … can take to TPAC and present to TAG our feedback
16:28:26 <Ryladog> +1
16:28:32 <npdoty> ack JoeHallCDT
16:28:33 <tara> Yup, good idea!
16:28:39 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: +1 to taking questionnaire to TPAC
16:29:05 <npdoty> ... understand npdoty on having one document/one place is good, connected to TAG sounds good
16:29:41 <npdoty> ... here are the pieces we think need to be updated with privacy-informed perspective
16:29:53 <npdoty> ... that could be formal input back to TAG
16:30:02 <npdoty> ... we (CDT) can work on that
16:30:20 <npdoty> ... when we have a discussion, Second Screen, more face to face feedback
16:30:42 <npdoty> ... there's no reason we PING couldn't be more ambassdors, going to other groups' calls
16:31:02 <npdoty> ... 1. go back to TAG with edits. 2. engage with groups, including at TPAC
16:31:11 <christine> q+
16:31:45 <JoeHallCDT> tara: we can build bridges for the meeting, and support this at TPAC
16:31:55 <npdoty> are there any times that East Coast US and Japan meetings that easily overlap?
16:32:15 <JoeHallCDT> christine: you volunteered to try reviewing Presentation API?
16:32:23 <npdoty> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0120.html
16:33:05 <JoeHallCDT> … for some reason, I didn't see that
16:35:02 <christine> +q
16:35:03 <npdoty> I've just updated the wiki page on privacy reviews with that link, and the fact that Greg has been looking at the Presentation API
16:35:33 <npdoty> q+ on list of reviews
16:36:26 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: would be good to have a set of resources somewhere, not just in the mailing list
16:36:36 <npdoty> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/Privacy_Reviews#Requested_reviews
16:36:51 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: we do have a wiki list of requested and finished reviews ^^^^
16:37:03 <tara> ack np
16:37:03 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to comment on list of reviews
16:37:06 <JoeHallCDT> … I am hopeful that this can be a semi-stable resource
16:37:13 <JoeHallCDT> … still need to send things to the mailing list
16:37:34 <JoeHallCDT> christine: to add to that, to Joe's point that also keeps the reviews so you don't have to look at the mailing list
16:37:44 <JoeHallCDT> … can we add to the wiki the actual detail of the reviews?
16:37:51 <JoeHallCDT> … ah you have… pointers to the emails?
16:38:05 <JoeHallCDT> … maybe that's all we need to do
16:38:11 <tara> ack ch
16:38:13 <JoeHallCDT> … we should look at that and what's the best way to do it
16:38:28 <npdoty> I'm not sure if the email review style is the best possible, but it's definitely a good start
16:38:44 <JoeHallCDT> … one of the things I'd like to do is send a note out to the list encouraging people to look at the Presentation API review before turning over to 2nd screen WG
16:38:51 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:39:03 <tara> ack jo
16:39:32 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: having a list on the wiki with pointers to emails where we go through a privacy review is great, but if there are multiple reviews, or follow-up pointers ... gets complicated
16:40:06 <npdoty> ... instead, could keep the review in a separate wiki page, and then update it on the wiki
16:41:00 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: haven't included a link to every email in the list discussing something… just the final link to the WG
16:41:56 <npdoty> q+ with more requested reviews
16:42:00 <npdoty> q+
16:42:06 <JoeHallCDT> tara: presumably the next call we'd have is during TPAC
16:42:13 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: do have some other business
16:42:23 <npdoty> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0133.html
16:42:49 <JoeHallCDT> … Mike West has asked for more feedback on what's now called Secure Context (used to be powerful features)
16:42:56 <JoeHallCDT> … limit certain features to secure origins
16:42:58 <npdoty> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0051.html
16:43:04 <JoeHallCDT> … DNT asked for feedback
16:43:33 <christine> q+
16:43:53 <JoeHallCDT> … the other thing was not so much a review as threads on clearing local data in private browsing mode
16:44:00 <JoeHallCDT> … now there is a proposal in WebAppSec
16:44:03 <npdoty> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2015JulSep/0134.html
16:44:09 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:44:11 <npdoty> ack
16:44:15 <npdoty> ack me
16:44:50 <JoeHallCDT> christine: also has a feeling that there may be something else as well
16:44:58 <JoeHallCDT> … we need to figure out how to contribute to these requests
16:45:22 <JoeHallCDT> … I can try to spurring people into action via the email list
16:45:33 <JoeHallCDT> … really need to be looking at these things
16:45:35 <tara> ack ch
16:45:49 <tara> ack jo
16:45:52 <npdoty> I'll update the wiki. if anyone knows of an individual who would be good to request review one of these documents, that would be great
16:47:55 <christine> @ Joe,yes, I'll chase up
16:48:40 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: could look at DNT with fresh eyes/PING perspective
16:48:55 <npdoty> ... otherwise, +1 to email reminders to prompt people, multiple people, to review
16:49:07 <JoeHallCDT> christine: header enrichment?
16:49:23 <JoeHallCDT> … nick and joe, still worthwhile doing anything else in this space
16:49:31 <christine> q+
16:49:38 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: rather than reviewing a document, could be a good thing for a convening function
16:49:40 <JoeHallCDT> +q
16:49:49 <JoeHallCDT> … privacy implications of header enrichment
16:50:34 <tara> ack ch
16:50:35 <JoeHallCDT> christine: suggestion and question:
16:50:58 <JoeHallCDT> … suggestion in the part of the unconference TPAC, maybe PING could suggest a session on the privacy imps of header enrichment
16:51:12 <JoeHallCDT> … question: this is slightly different from what PING does traditionally
16:51:19 <npdoty> I think the unconference is still on the schedule; sounds like a reasonable idea to me
16:51:25 <JoeHallCDT> … could PING have a series of blog posts? statements?
16:51:45 <JoeHallCDT> tara: sounds interesting, not sure about the precedent
16:51:56 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: there's a w3c blog, anyone can blog on their own
16:52:06 <JoeHallCDT> … if we think that's a good way to communicate on a topic, we should do it.
16:52:10 <JoeHallCDT> ack me
16:52:32 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: Unsanctioned Tracking finding from TAG relevant to header enrichment
16:52:54 <npdoty> ... what would we say about header enrichment, separate from TAG finding?
16:53:40 <npdoty> ... not okay, except in these circumstances
16:54:03 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: might be interesting to try to define exactly what circumstances might be privacy preserving in header enrichment
16:54:13 <JoeHallCDT> … we want to get the  header enrichment and privacy people to talk
16:55:17 <npdoty> JoeHallCDT: concern about it not being end-to-end on any level, but could imagine some use cases
16:55:23 <christine> q+
16:55:33 <tara> ack ch
16:55:47 <JoeHallCDT> christine: who do we think the pro-enrichment people would be
16:55:59 <JoeHallCDT> Joe: Verizon and AT&T
16:56:37 <JoeHallCDT> christine: are there others that have been doing this?
16:56:45 <JoeHallCDT> JoeHallCDT: not sure
16:56:57 <JoeHallCDT> christine: would be worthwhile having a conversation
16:57:19 <christine> q+
16:57:34 <npdoty> yeah, I should probably do that
16:58:11 <JoeHallCDT> christine: add to the list things that need to be done: organize TPAC session, send agenda around
16:58:21 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: telecon in october? or just TPAC?
16:58:35 <JoeHallCDT> tara: arranged for there to be a phone so that we could do that
16:58:39 <JoeHallCDT> … time zones will be hard
16:58:52 <JoeHallCDT> npdoty: should have remote optoin, but separate call in October
16:58:57 <JoeHallCDT> +1
16:59:11 <JoeHallCDT> christine: inclined to think we should have a call separate from TPAC meeting
16:59:19 <JoeHallCDT> … keep the enthusiasm!
16:59:29 <JoeHallCDT> tara: quite a valid point
16:59:36 <JoeHallCDT> … just don't want folks to be overwhelmed.
16:59:48 <JoeHallCDT> … should we do it before TPAC? since TPAC is right before
16:59:53 <JoeHallCDT> … 22 would make sense?
16:59:55 <christine> 22 works
17:00:17 <npdoty> maybe we could check with our Geofencing presentation re: scheduling
17:00:23 <JoeHallCDT> tara: will assume we'll do it then, with the aim of making progress for the TPAC set of meetings
17:00:44 <npdoty> trackbot, end meeting
17:00:44 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:00:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, runnegar, tara, JoeHallCDT, LCPolan, KatieHS, Haritos-Shea
17:00:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-privacy-minutes.html trackbot
17:00:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:00:53 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:03:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #privacy
17:03:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-privacy-irc
17:03:58 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:03:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-privacy-minutes.html npdoty
17:04:42 <npdoty> npdoty has changed the topic to: Minutes from PING, 17 September: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-privacy-minutes.html
17:05:57 <JoeHallCDT1> JoeHallCDT1 has joined #privacy
17:07:40 <JoeHallCDT1> JoeHallCDT1 has joined #privacy
17:16:23 <JoeHallCDT> JoeHallCDT has joined #privacy
17:22:06 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy
17:28:57 <JoeHallCDT> JoeHallCDT has left #privacy
17:35:05 <keiji> keiji has joined #privacy
18:18:32 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy
19:53:45 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #privacy
20:25:02 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #privacy
21:02:14 <keiji> keiji has left #privacy
21:05:13 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy
21:28:15 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy
23:01:26 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy
23:47:12 <keiji> keiji has joined #privacy
23:56:50 <LCPolan> LCPolan has joined #privacy