Opened 12 years ago

Closed 11 years ago

#49 closed defect (fixed)

Frederick's Review

Reported by: Frederick.​Hirsch@… Owned by: acooper@…
Priority: minor Milestone: milestone1
Component: draft-iab-privacy-workshop Version: 1.0
Severity: Active WG Document Keywords:
Cc:

Description

I have a few comments:

(1) I suggest changing the page header from "Privacy Workshop" to "Joint 2010 IETF-W3C-MIT Privacy Workshop" as there have been an ongoing stream of similar workshops and no doubt we may have more :) The term IETF is probably not entirely accurate but might be widely recognized outside the immediate community.

(2) In para 2 in the intro, perhaps "generic protocols and tools" captures the sense better than "generative"? I think context is an issue even with software written in a variety of styles, etc. This may reflect my lack of understanding of "generative", which I take to mean using a higher level language to generate more detailed code, but this concern is applicable in my opinion even at the higher level code. Same comment applies to section 4 and 4.1 and the summary.

(3) In para 3, suggestion to change

"further work on documenting privacy considerations for protocol developers" to "an expectation of including privacy considerations as a required section of RFCs"

"and a number of exploratory" to "and initiating a number of exploratory"

(4) I suggest you remove section 3.4, agree the topics are already covered. Also the other sections are at a higher level, dealing with principles, to all of which system may apply

(5) a personal nit, I think users understand what is important to them quite well, it is just that technologists haven't matched that when they build systems :) for example, user viewpoint on first and third parties makes perfect sense, it is the use of domains technology that doesn't fit. As a user I'd love to understand where my data goes, is retained, how it is used etc, but nobody tells me in a useful manner.

5a) Concrete suggestion: change section 3.5 from "Lack of User Understanding" to "Lack of transparency and disclosure related to information use"

5b) The last paragraph doesn't seem to fit - the first three paragraphs are about a failure to communicate use to users, the last suggests something different. I suggest removing para 4 from 3.5, not sure it is essential.

5c) I would move para 3 to section 4.2 and remove the reference back to 3.5 (end of para 2 in 4.2)

6) section 4, typo, replace "privact" with "privacy"

7) section 4.3.2 change title from "P3P: A Case Study" to "P3P: A Case Study in the importance of Incentives"

8) section 4.3.2 typo, replace "compells" with "compels"

typo, "commerical" to "commercial"

9) Section 5.1 typo, replace "Interent" with Internet"

I hope this helps.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by acooper@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.