RE: Consent

Don't we have to distinguish between consent that is granted
beforehand and consent that is granted at the time of disclosure?

Don't we have to distinguish consent that is given out of band
(by contract, for example, or some website action) from consent
that is given within message exchanges in the protocol to which
the object is attached?

Don't we want to deal with the range of policy decisions?
I wonder if your "Default-consent-action" is exactly a policy
based consent or not.

I propose that the requirement be that consent must be
obtained before location is revealed. Consent can be
obtained by any means prior to revealing location.
Consent must be tied to some form of strong authentication.
Consent may be implied by contract, law, local policy or
service selection, but in such cases it is strongly recommended
that users be informed under what circumstances location
will be revealed and to whom. Where the use case of the location
object permits direct user interaction, protocols implementing
the object shall have provisions for presenting the authenticated
identity of entities requesting location and requesting explicit
consent from the user immediately prior to revealing location.
Such provisions should be used wherever practical.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Shostack [mailto:adam@zeroknowledge.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:58 PM
> To: James M. Polk
> Cc: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Consent
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 02:07:56PM -0500, James M. Polk wrote:
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > I'm glad someone brought this up as a starting point for
> discussion....
> > comments below
> >
> > At 02:46 PM 8/20/2001 -0400, Adam Shostack wrote:
> > >I'm finding myself asking a lot of questions about what
> people mean by
> > >phrases they use including the word "consent."
> > >
> > >May I suggest that we use the following terminology:
> > >
> > >Consentual-disclosure: The end-user has chosen to reveal
> > >information. This choice is freely given, not mandated or
> required.
> >
> > But is this given explicitly or implicitly (and yes I've
> read below)? Is
> > everyone defaulted to be allowed or not-allowed to discover
> location of
> > another. What about in letting others discover my location?
>
> I think there are two issues, one of which is how we reach a consent
> decision, and then second, what we do with it. This set of ideas was
> (implicitly) designed for signalling what form of consent is being
> asked for or assumed.
>
> My location is personally identifiable information in which I have a
> strong privacy interest. Under the Fair Information Practices, I need
> to have notice and consent if that information is given to others.
> There are exceptions, such as for law enforcement or 911, which is why
> theres the mandated-disclosure category.
>
> If we can agree that these are useful categories, we can start to
> decide how to put things into categories and use them.
>
> I think that in Europe, Canada, Australia, and other places where data
> protection laws apply to private firms, the default would need to be
> that your consent is required before the disclosure of information to
> friends, family, or companies that want to see it.
>
> > >Mandated-disclosure: There is a legal requirement to reveal
> > >information.
> >
> > again, explicitly or implicitly?
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question. How can a law imply that you
> must do something? Don't laws need to be explicit?
>
> If you're asking in the context of a protocol, then I think that a
> disclosure is mandated by law should accompany
> - the demand for data (if the end user device is involved in the
> request, the user preference software can't ignore it. There are also
> authorization requirements, otherwise I'll just tag all my packets
> with a mandatory bit)
>
> - the data as it goes elsewhere. The fact that it was demanded
> probably places limits on how it can be used and revealed onwards.
> For example, while there are a set of uses for E911 data that have
> been listed, the fact that I dialed 911 should not mean that the
> service provider can now reveal my location to starbucks.
>
> Adam
>
>
> > >Needed-disclosure: There is a requirement to reveal the
> > >information in order to make the service work. For
> example, if I call
> > >1-800-find-gas to get the nearest gas station, I may expect that my
> > >location will be transmitted.
> > >
> > >Explicit-consent-action: The user performs a GUI action to
> reveal or
> > >conceal information at the time of the request
> > >
> > >Default-conset-action: The user has set a preference for some
> > >recipient, class of recipient, etc.
> > >
> > >Adam
> >
> > *************************************
> > "People generally demand more respect for their own rights
> than they are
> > willing to allow for others"
> >
> > James M. Polk
> > Consulting Engineer
> > Office of the CTO
> >
> > Cisco Systems
> > 18581 N. Dallas Parkway
> > Dallas, Texas 75287
> > w) 972.813.5208
> > f) 972.813.5280
> > www.cisco.com
> --
> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
> -Hume
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 22 15:32:50 2001