IRC log of privacy on 2015-12-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:56:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #privacy
16:56:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-privacy-irc
16:56:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs 263
16:56:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #privacy
16:56:09 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
16:56:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:56:10 [trackbot]
Meeting: Privacy Interest Group Teleconference
16:56:10 [trackbot]
Date: 03 December 2015
16:56:36 [tidoust]
tidoust has joined #privacy
16:56:44 [npdoty]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:56:49 [npdoty]
Zakim, clear agenda
16:56:49 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
16:57:36 [npdoty]
agenda+ Welcome and introductions
16:57:36 [npdoty]
agenda+ Presentation API - privacy considerations - further discussion
16:57:38 [npdoty]
agenda+ High Resolution Time Level 2
16:57:39 [npdoty]
agenda+ Moving forward with the Fingerprinting Guidance
16:57:41 [npdoty]
agenda+ Moving forward with the Privacy Questionnaire
16:57:42 [npdoty]
agenda+ Follow-up re Geofencing API, Media Capture Streams
16:57:43 [npdoty]
agenda+ Ultrasound tracking beacons, Device Orientation privacy and security issues
16:57:44 [npdoty]
agenda+ AOB
16:58:51 [chaals]
chaals has joined #privacy
17:01:21 [npdoty]
present+ npdoty, christine, gnorcie
17:02:47 [christine]
Hi all. We'll just wait a couple of minutes before starting.
17:03:59 [wseltzer]
zakim, code?
17:03:59 [Zakim]
no conference has been identified yet, wseltzer
17:04:46 [wseltzer]
zakim, this is 642 381 506
17:04:46 [Zakim]
got it, wseltzer
17:04:48 [tidoust]
present+ tidoust
17:04:48 [wseltzer]
zakim, code?
17:04:48 [Zakim]
I have been told this is 642 381 506
17:04:52 [mfoltzgoogle]
mfoltzgoogle has joined #privacy
17:04:59 [npdoty]
present+ tidoust
17:05:08 [npdoty]
present+ mfoltzgoogle
17:05:43 [wseltzer]
present+
17:06:28 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
17:06:45 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 1
17:06:45 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Welcome and introductions" taken up [from npdoty]
17:07:20 [npdoty]
christine: small group this week, might be getting into holiday schedule
17:07:24 [npdoty]
welcome!
17:07:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 2
17:07:33 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Presentation API - privacy considerations - further discussion" taken up [from npdoty]
17:07:45 [christine]
http://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/
17:08:16 [npdoty]
http://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/#security-and-privacy-considerations
17:09:21 [npdoty]
christine: helpful when you joined our call last time. but it sounds like you had group conversations on privacy/security while at TPAC
17:10:44 [npdoty]
mfoltzgoogle: will give estimate of current status of several privacy issues
17:11:11 [npdoty]
... how do we ensure that the context that renders the presentation, which is rendered onto a shared device potentially, what is the browsing context?
17:11:27 [npdoty]
... don't want to leak information to other browsing contexts or other presentations
17:11:46 [npdoty]
... feedback from the TAG was that there isn't any well-defined context for this already
17:12:06 [npdoty]
... we want an empty local storage, cookie jar, permissions set, etc. (like a private browsing mode)
17:12:20 [npdoty]
... should this interact with the Permissions API?
17:12:44 [npdoty]
... currently investigating the ability to see whether a presentation screen is available already or not
17:13:02 [npdoty]
... how should the spec interact with mixed content?
17:13:43 [npdoty]
... how should the API interact with nested browsing contexts? does the top-level browsing context control how iframes have the ability to request presentations?
17:14:04 [npdoty]
... okay to allow this by default, because risks are just annoying the user
17:14:36 [npdoty]
... but top-level contexts will have the ability to blacklist or prevent its frames from using presentation
17:15:00 [npdoty]
... if the controlling context is on a different device than the presentation, how do we secure the channel for messages?
17:15:34 [npdoty]
... defining that protocol is out of scope, but a Community Group will define a network-level protocol for presentations, including one way to secure presentations
17:16:38 [npdoty]
christine: very busy as a group
17:16:40 [npdoty]
... any questions?
17:16:43 [npdoty]
q+
17:16:49 [tidoust]
q+
17:16:55 [wseltzer]
q+
17:22:20 [npdoty]
q-
17:22:41 [npdoty]
npdoty: questions about the cleared local state context
17:22:56 [npdoty]
mfoltzgoogle: can send authentication tokens across messaging
17:23:19 [npdoty]
... want to avoid leakage, but also want to ensure that this will work in the cross-device situation
17:23:40 [mfoltzgoogle]
FYI: Our pull request that defines the empty browsing context: https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/pull/219
17:24:00 [npdoty]
tidoust: not just audio/video streaming, particularly in the cross-device case
17:25:32 [npdoty]
gnorcie: more concerned about the privacy risks to the user, and streaming audio/video from the user is potentially very sensitive
17:25:50 [npdoty]
tidoust: use case is video rendered from the page, not the user's microphone/camera
17:26:18 [npdoty]
gnorcie: but seeing what is on my screen is also very sensitive (like documents open on the screen)
17:26:43 [npdoty]
tidoust: that matches how we thought about the issue
17:26:52 [npdoty]
ack tidoust
17:27:06 [npdoty]
tidoust: if there are issues we haven't addressed yet, please let us know
17:27:10 [npdoty]
... don't want to miss any strong concerns
17:27:32 [npdoty]
christine: so happy that your group is taking privacy/security so seriously
17:27:37 [npdoty]
ack wseltzer
17:28:45 [npdoty]
wseltzer: Presentation API gives a good use case for standardizing some private browsing mode, what is the minimal and safe context that can be established
17:29:08 [npdoty]
... can get a standard description of that sandboxed context that works across browsers
17:29:25 [tidoust]
[I note that the TAG discussed Private Browsing Mode in relation with the Presentation API yesterday, see draft minutes at: https://pad.w3ctag.org/p/02-12-2015-minutes.md ]
17:30:33 [npdoty]
christine: is the goal that when we have another spec with this kind of scenario, then we can suggest using this text?
17:31:35 [npdoty]
wseltzer: start collecting these use cases and the approach, possibly into a Note, or could possibly charter a group if there's some more complicated set of use cases about that private mode
17:31:54 [npdoty]
christine: could help coordinate discussion with webappsec as well
17:32:11 [npdoty]
wseltzer: PING could be helpful, particularly in setting requirements that can be used by security engineers
17:32:14 [npdoty]
q+
17:32:45 [wseltzer]
npdoty: a few different specs raise security considerations around fullscreen
17:32:56 [wseltzer]
... because user might not know origin of content
17:33:06 [wseltzer]
... could be spoofing risk
17:33:17 [gnorcie]
gnorcie has joined #privacy
17:33:20 [wseltzer]
... does presentation API consider this?
17:33:42 [gnorcie]
can someone put me in the queue to discuss privacy questionaire?
17:34:25 [gnorcie]
I need to leave at 1 so i want to make sure we discuss
17:34:56 [npdoty]
mfoltzgoogle: UX focused on making the user know which origin is being displayed, and origin being accessible after the fact
17:36:24 [npdoty]
... phishing more awkward in this scenario because the user has to grant permission for displaying on that presenter display each time
17:36:32 [npdoty]
tidoust: could open a issue for notes to add there
17:36:42 [npdoty]
... is there any screen that the second screen could be used by another user
17:37:54 [npdoty]
... could a user be tricked into thinking that they're just doing regular browsing on the separate device
17:38:15 [npdoty]
npdoty: yeah, seems like there are multiple users by definition
17:38:36 [npdoty]
mfoltzgoogle: maybe have an issue about multi-user, like a second user controlling the presentation without the user's knowledge
17:39:54 [npdoty]
christine: will send out email summary, to note for people who want to raise issues that now is a good time
17:40:05 [npdoty]
zakim, take up agendum 3
17:40:05 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "High Resolution Time Level 2" taken up [from npdoty]
17:40:18 [mfoltzgoogle]
mfoltzgoogle has left #privacy
17:40:19 [npdoty]
the academic paper, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.07373v2.pdf
17:40:44 [npdoty]
http://www.w3.org/TR/hr-time-2/
17:41:36 [npdoty]
christine: request in from phillippe, note some privacy/security concerns
17:41:57 [npdoty]
... the spec recommends a minimum resolution to protect against cache attacks which could identify the user
17:43:39 [npdoty]
npdoty: would have to read the paper in more detail, not sure which attacks are protected by the 5 microsecond resolution change
17:44:17 [npdoty]
christine: can ask phillippe if they want to come and talk to us, might explain how useful the mitigation is
17:44:51 [npdoty]
npdoty: can also ask whether the academic community has provided specific review
17:45:12 [npdoty]
take up agendum 4
17:45:23 [npdoty]
yay, that Interest Group Draft Note published
17:46:17 [wseltzer]
npdoty: now we have a reasonably stable doc we can ask people to review
17:46:31 [wseltzer]
... and we can invite people to add to github issues list, provide proposed resolution
17:46:41 [wseltzer]
christine: should I solicit input from chairs?
17:46:45 [wseltzer]
npdoty: yes
17:47:28 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 5
17:47:28 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Moving forward with the Privacy Questionnaire" taken up [from npdoty]
17:48:08 [npdoty]
gnorcie: sent out email in things we can send as specific pull requests to the TAG for the security questionnaire
17:48:22 [npdoty]
... privacy things would just be the very simple things (did you think about privacy?)
17:48:45 [npdoty]
... and if you want to dive deep, including edge cases that won't be applicable for every standard
17:51:49 [npdoty]
npdoty: +1, matches the TAG discussion at TPAC, where they wanted a very simple version for most, and then a drill-down
17:52:02 [npdoty]
gnorcie: want to make this collaborative, rather than just my own thoughts
17:52:22 [npdoty]
npdoty: I know what you mean :) yes, take that as a reminder
17:52:51 [npdoty]
christine: maybe we can split up, focus on one small question at a time, looking at different documents
17:53:11 [npdoty]
... even when we have best intentions, many collaborators are going to be doing this in the spare time during their day jobs
17:53:17 [tara]
tara has joined #privacy
17:53:22 [npdoty]
... mailing list does best with snippet discussions on particular topic
17:53:36 [tara]
Hullo all! Sorry to join late.
17:53:41 [npdoty]
present+ tara
17:55:18 [keiji]
keiji has joined #privacy
17:56:25 [npdoty]
christine: will schedule a time to talk with greg
17:57:13 [npdoty]
npdoty: some things will need a full document review, but when we have a specific attack or a specific news item, should have that small discussion and ask whether we have general guidance about it
17:57:46 [npdoty]
January 28
17:58:08 [npdoty]
[adjourned]
17:58:13 [npdoty]
chair: christine
17:58:22 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:58:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-privacy-minutes.html npdoty
17:59:11 [npdoty]
present+ wseltzer
17:59:45 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:59:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-privacy-minutes.html npdoty
18:01:06 [npdoty]
npdoty has changed the topic to: Privacy Interest Group, 3 December: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-privacy-minutes.html
18:01:50 [keiji]
keiji has left #privacy