- WG-UMA - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

The Death of Safe Harbor is the Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity
by Neiditz, Jon 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

Why? The Advocate General's opinion and the Court's decision both turn on the inability of Safe Harbor to prevent surveillance. NO permitted basis for data transfer prevents surveillance, not Model Clauses, not Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs). Logically, if probably not in immediate corporate and EU national practice, the only bulletproof basis for data transfer to the US is now the ever-so-revocable CONSENT, which presumes no fictitious protection from surveillance. See also: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-morning-safe-harbor-dead-what-does-mean… Your thoughts? Jon Neiditz Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341 jneiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com | www.kilpatricktownsend.com ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

7 13

Re: [WG-UMA] UMA is ready
by Eve Maler 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

(Weird, I didn’t seem to get a direct copy of this email — thanks to Mike for forwarding it to me. Is Pedro perhaps just subscribed to the list and not a WG participant?) > On 6 Oct 2015, at 10:41 PM, Mike Schwartz <mike(a)gluu.org> wrote: > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] UMA is ready > Date: 2015-10-06 09:47 > From: Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com> > To: "Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal(a)idmachines.com> > Cc: Justin Richer <jricher(a)mit.edu>, Michael Schwartz <mike(a)gluu.org>, wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org > > Hi, > > We've being working on an authorization solution for one of our community projects. Initially, we've chosen UMA because its seems to address some of our requirements. For instance: > > - Use standards and avoid, when possible, proprietary solutions > - Be able to support different types of resources > - Leverage existing oAuth2 and OIDC implementation in order to plug additional authorization capabilities for resource servers > - Leverage existing oAuth2 implementation with a more fine-grained policy and permissioning model > - Support different ways to define authorization policies (XACML, etc) > - Support a distributed and centralized PAP and PDP. > > From what I read so far, we are mainly considering the so called NPE use cases, where the resource server is actually protecting its own resources. > > So far, UMA fits nicely to what we are planning. However, there are some things that I would like to share based on what is being discussed on this thread. > > First of all, most examples, docs and even the specs, seem to cover only use cases where the user is in control of his resources and probably using different AS. I understand that this is the main use case that UMA tries to solve, but shouldn't have also more references about NPE use cases ? Specially from a spec perspective ? This is a good point. We have done some editing to take away some overt assumptions, but perhaps we could do more. I just did a search for “resource owner” in Core, and Sec 2 jumps out as one place, and also the heavy “web app” assumptions in a few places. But, reading through with this specifically in mind, I wonder if this is more in the eye of the beholder at this point. This is why we wanted to have a section in the UIG to discuss the implications of a non-human RO — and we were finding that there isn’t a heck of a lot more to say. Do you have suggestions for improvements? It would be great to catalogue these for future discussion. Actually, the design patterns that the NZ folks have been working on are where I suspect the real meat is, and these (I’ve been finding) are not so much a spec thing as a deployment-choice thing, perhaps more in the realm of “deployment profiles”. E.g., in an environment where an individual RO wants to share a resource with an employee of an organization, does the RO share with an individual RqP agent, an RqP-as-RqP, a non-unique set of “RqP agents by role claim”, or what? NZ chose one path that I think is potentially elegant, but it wasn’t a complete solution. > > From a NPE perspective, do we really need all those steps in order to obtain a RPT and finally access a resource ? In other words, does all the steps involved in a non NPE use case apply to NPE ? Specially if you consider that a RS relies on a single AS. If the AS issued the claims/ID token/whatever in the first place, and if you push claims in the initial RPT endpoint request, it could be fairly straightforward. Is that what you’re thinking of, or some further optimization? > > For last, we also have some requirements regarding entitlements. In some situations, we must be able to return all the entitlements for a given identity (and not only act as a PDP). Given that UMA does not provide something around that, we are designing a proprietary solution. What do you think about that and are there any plans to standardize how you obtain the entitlements/permissions in UMA ? This is where I’ve been thinking for a long time that it would be very valuable to experiment with new token profiles. In some conversations with one SaaS company, I heard (e.g.) that they likely wouldn’t be satisfied with just resource set/scope permissions, because they have so many custom fine-grained semantics, and would want to get ID tokens and claims about the RqP in addition (a very SSO-like pattern). Your case sounds almost like the opposite end of the spectrum (if I’m understanding correctly). We knew that our default MTI token profile in V1.0 might not be the be-all end-all — it’s just there for interop out of the box — so experimentation here would be great… Eve > > Regards. > Pedro Igor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Salvatore D'Agostino" <sal(a)idmachines.com> > To: "Justin Richer" <jricher(a)mit.edu>, "Michael Schwartz" <mike(a)gluu.org> > Cc: wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 9:50:30 AM > Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] UMA is ready > > Thanks for this Justin I agree that this is a good way to look at things. > > As an example there are a number of things that measures something's maturity, these include: > > 1. Extent of deployments > 2. Extent of conformance and interop > 3. Availability of open source for all the endpoints (in multiple dev environments/language). > > On these measures UMA is still moving out the maturity model. Not recognizing this would be silly as would be treating the immature comments as damning. > > Justin nailed it, look at 1.01 if it fits use it and join us in making access control meet the privacy, scale and "userability" that is so needed on line today. > > b/r Sal > > -----Original Message----- > From: wg-uma-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [mailto:wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 8:10 AM > To: Michael Schwartz > Cc: wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org UMA > Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] UMA is ready > > Or maybe, if we remove the tinfoil-lined hat, UMA really *is* half-baked in a lot of ways. I know it’s difficult to see that when you’ve invested a lot of time and effort into a project, but when criticisms come in it’s often best to start with “they may have a point” before jumping to the defense of decisions you’ve made. It’s implementable within certain circumstances, but that doesn’t make it a good fit for everywhere. It’s likely that most deployments of Gluu (and others like the demos I’ve seen from ForgeRock) are working within specific environments that fit very nicely with the assumptions that the UMA standard has made so far. > > I ran face-first into a lot of these assumptions while implementing UMA in our own project. It fit in some ways, and really really didn’t in others. We had to hack in a few pieces to make our demo work (like the cross-domain AAT, which is why I want it gone in the next revision). It’s possible you won’t know if it’s a good fit until you try to build it, so grab a couple engineers and go to town for a few weeks. If it works, great, you’ve got the start to a really good solution. If it doesn’t work, come tell the working group how and we’ll try to fix that. You’ve only invested a very small amount of time/money/effort and probably learned a lot about your problem in the process, so this is hardly a wasted investment. > > What I’d tell people looking at UMA today is to look at their problem set and use case. Does UMA 1.0.1 fit that use case? Awesome, use it! There are a handful of implementations that work just fine in their own use cases and may or may not be interoperable, we don’t actually know, but the ecosystem is just getting started so come join us. And I think that the software-engineering approach to spec management that this group is adopting is a very good (and hopefully repeatable) model for managing expectations and efforts of people using the spec. Problem is, most consumers of specs don’t quite get that yet, but I think they will. This community needs to do an even better job of managing expectations than we’re already doing. > > Is UMA ready? Sure, for some things. Is it perfect? Not at all. Is it universally applicable? Not a chance. Is it done? Hardly. And that’s OK, as long as we all work to manage expectations. For example, don’t tell people that UMA is the answer before you know their question. ;) > > — Justin > >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Mike Schwartz <mike(a)gluu.org> wrote: >>>> I have heard and seen pushback that UMA is too immature to >>>> implement yet and that worries me. >> Of course its hard to respond to hearsay, but maybe the ones saying UMA is immature have an interest in non-interoperability of API security. Maybe it's not in the interest of vendors who haven't implemented, or don't understand UMA, to say it's immature. Or maybe the ones saying its not mature would rather not see a standard evolving at an organization they can't control. Who knows... >> Gluu had no trouble implementing UMA. And the changes from 1.0 to 1.0.1 are no worse than the changes we've seen in OpenID Connect (i.e. look at the new front channel and back channel logout proposed specs). >> Ultimately, Gluu's customers are deriving a competitive business advantage by using UMA, and that's all that really matters to us. >> What I'd like to see is more sample code and more libraries. I think that would help--i.e. implementation is exactly what is needed, not what should be delayed. >> - Mike >> ------------------------------------- >> Michael Schwartz >> Gluu >> Founder / CEO >> _______________________________________________ >> WG-UMA mailing list >> WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma > > _______________________________________________ > WG-UMA mailing list > WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma > > _______________________________________________ > WG-UMA mailing list > WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma > > -- > ------------------------------------- > Michael Schwartz > Gluu > Founder / CEO > mike(a)gluu.org Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

1 0

UMA is ready
by Mike Schwartz 06 Oct '15

06 Oct '15

>> I have heard and seen pushback that UMA is too >> immature to implement yet and that worries me. Of course its hard to respond to hearsay, but maybe the ones saying UMA is immature have an interest in non-interoperability of API security. Maybe it's not in the interest of vendors who haven't implemented, or don't understand UMA, to say it's immature. Or maybe the ones saying its not mature would rather not see a standard evolving at an organization they can't control. Who knows... Gluu had no trouble implementing UMA. And the changes from 1.0 to 1.0.1 are no worse than the changes we've seen in OpenID Connect (i.e. look at the new front channel and back channel logout proposed specs). Ultimately, Gluu's customers are deriving a competitive business advantage by using UMA, and that's all that really matters to us. What I'd like to see is more sample code and more libraries. I think that would help--i.e. implementation is exactly what is needed, not what should be delayed. - Mike ------------------------------------- Michael Schwartz Gluu Founder / CEO

5 6

Question a basic assumption ?
by Roland Hedberg 06 Oct '15

06 Oct '15

Hi guys, I’d like to question a basic assumption in UMA as it’s defined now. I have a use case where a query to the RS concerns several resource sets. Typically a problem you will have when you’re dealing with hierarchically organized or grouped information. According to 3.2.1 ”The body of the HTTP request message contains a JSON object providing the requested permission” Note! the ’a’. I’d like it to be a list ! Such that I can bind one ticket to a set of permissions not just one. The other option is that I gather a set of tickets, one per permission, return them to the client which then gets the AS to binds them to one RPT. I’d prefer the first option. — Roland 'Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break ’em.’ - Terry Pratchett

2 2

Re: [WG-UMA] [projectvrm] Re: The Death of Safe Harbor is the Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity
by Neiditz, Jon 06 Oct '15

06 Oct '15

You cannot give an irrevocable consent, because that would be attempting to alienate a “human right.” Jon Neiditz Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341 jneiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com> | My Profile<http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who%20We%20Are/Professionals/N/Neiditz…> | vCard<http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/_assets/vcards/professionals/NeiditzJonat…> [cid:image005.png@01D10029.7D550CC0]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/informationmanagementlaw> [cid:image006.png@01D10029.7D550CC0] <http://www.twitter.com/jonneiditz> From: Mike O'Neill [mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:21 AM To: 'James Hazard' Cc: Neiditz, Jon; 'WG UMA'; 'ProjectVRM list' Subject: RE: [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity Correct. Consent must be “freely given, specific and informed”. Even if the basis is “legitimate interest” they still have the right to opt-out, by automated means (if that is still in the GDPR). From: James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com] Sent: 06 October 2015 15:48 To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill(a)baycloud.com<mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com>> Cc: Neiditz, Jon <JNeiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:JNeiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com>>; WG UMA <wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org>>; ProjectVRM list <projectvrm(a)eon.law.harvard.edu<mailto:projectvrm@eon.law.harvard.edu>> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity So, roughly, ?/ "I consent to You taking the Specified Personal Information to the US. You agree to: protect it, use it only for Specified Purposes, inform me of Leaks, and Destroy it when no longer needed for the Specified Purposes or I ask You to." Can a person give non-revocable consent to use of data within EU? /? On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill(a)baycloud.com<mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com>> wrote: Consent must be “freely given”, so IMO it follows that it must be revocable (with a “sunset”). Article 29 and many DPAs also have said that. From: James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com<mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com>] Sent: 06 October 2015 14:53 To: Neiditz, Jon <JNeiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:JNeiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Cc: WG UMA <wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org>>; ProjectVRM list <projectvrm(a)eon.law.harvard.edu<mailto:projectvrm@eon.law.harvard.edu>> Subject: [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity Do you mean that consent of the person permits transfer of data, but consent is necessarily revocable and data must be destroyed? On Oct 6, 2015 3:40 PM, "Neiditz, Jon" <JNeiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:JNeiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote: Why? The Advocate General's opinion and the Court's decision both turn on the inability of Safe Harbor to prevent surveillance. NO permitted basis for data transfer prevents surveillance, not Model Clauses, not Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs). Logically, if probably not in immediate corporate and EU national practice, the only bulletproof basis for data transfer to the US is now the ever-so-revocable CONSENT, which presumes no fictitious protection from surveillance. See also: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-morning-safe-harbor-dead-what-does-mean… Your thoughts? Jon Neiditz Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 office 404 815 6004<tel:404%20815%206004> | cell 678-427-7809<tel:678-427-7809> | fax 770 234 6341<tel:770%20234%206341> jneiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com> | www.kilpatricktownsend.com<http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma -- @commonaccord

1 0

Re: [WG-UMA] [projectvrm] Re: The Death of Safe Harbor is the Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity
by James Hazard 06 Oct '15

06 Oct '15

So, roughly, ?/ "I consent to You taking the Specified Personal Information to the US. You agree to: protect it, use it only for Specified Purposes, inform me of Leaks, and Destroy it when no longer needed for the Specified Purposes or I ask You to." Can a person give non-revocable consent to use of data within EU? /? On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill(a)baycloud.com> wrote: > Consent must be “freely given”, so IMO it follows that it must be > revocable (with a “sunset”). Article 29 and many DPAs also have said that. > > > > > > *From:* James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 06 October 2015 14:53 > *To:* Neiditz, Jon <JNeiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> > *Cc:* WG UMA <wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org>; ProjectVRM list < > projectvrm(a)eon.law.harvard.edu> > *Subject:* [projectvrm] Re: [WG-UMA] The Death of Safe Harbor is the > Ultimate VRM and UMA Legal Opportunity > > > > Do you mean that consent of the person permits transfer of data, but > consent is necessarily revocable and data must be destroyed? > > On Oct 6, 2015 3:40 PM, "Neiditz, Jon" <JNeiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com> > wrote: > > Why? > > The Advocate General's opinion and the Court's decision both turn on the > inability of Safe Harbor to prevent surveillance. NO permitted basis for > data transfer prevents surveillance, not Model Clauses, not Binding > Corporate Rules (BCRs). Logically, if probably not in immediate corporate > and EU national practice, the only bulletproof basis for data transfer to > the US is now the ever-so-revocable CONSENT, which presumes no fictitious > protection from surveillance. > > See also: > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-morning-safe-harbor-dead-what-does-mean… > > Your thoughts? > > Jon Neiditz > Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP > Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 > office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341 > jneiditz(a)kilpatricktownsend.com | www.kilpatricktownsend.com > > > ________________________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: > This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the > meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section > 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by > the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may > contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney > work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or > attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us > immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original > transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. > > ________________________________ > > ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal > tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is > not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of > (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, > marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter > addressed herein. > _______________________________________________ > WG-UMA mailing list > WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma > > -- @commonaccord

1 0

No WG meeting on Oct 1 or Oct 8
by Eve Maler 06 Oct '15

06 Oct '15

Hi folks— A few people have indicated they need a little more time to work on UIG action items, and we don’t have a lot of other really urgent business until the Public Review period end gets closer. (And I have conflicts. :-) If those with AIs can please work on them in the meantime, and if everyone (particularly voting participants) can also please be sure to mark your calendars for the Oct 22 and Nov 5 meetings so that we can make quorum to discuss Public Review comments and approve changes for the Draft Recommendations, I think we’ll be fine not meeting for the next two weeks. Let’s keep up with our legal subgroup meetings, though. And let’s hold the next APAC sync, which is scheduled for Oct 15. Thanks! Eve Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

1 1

Recommendation from leadership team re IETF I-D situation
by Eve Maler 05 Oct '15

05 Oct '15

Since our previous WG discussion on this was inconclusive, Thomas, Maciej, and I discussed the question of whether we should let our current IETF Internet-Drafts expire without update vs. revise them preparatory to our original Informational RFC submission plan. Our consensus was to let them expire. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-resource-reg-06 (exp Oct 6) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-13 (exp Oct 6) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maler-oauth-umatrust-03 (exp Oct 7) Rationales: Contributions there hadn’t stimulated any feedback or activity coming from the IETF quarter, and there is benefit in having a single canonical version of the specs to refer to. We found diminishing appetite to approach other forums. We’re due to consider a revision of our charter anyway, so let’s look at aligning it with the new plan in our Oct 22 call (assuming quorum), unless anyone would like to make a case for keeping the current plan (or some other third option). If you have questions or concerns, please float them in this thread. Thanks, Eve Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

3 5

Notes from UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-02
by Eve Maler 03 Oct '15

03 Oct '15

Check on AI status: [DONE <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/wiki/UMA-Legal:-Business-Models>] Business model wiki page [DONE <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/wiki/UMA-Legal:-Examples-of-Ter…>] Collection of sources of contract terms for getting OAuth client credentials Jon: Thoughts on IoT liability tensions Determine roughly what our outputs should look like Develop a list of unknowns without which we can’t finish our work How to prioritize the rest of the work? Gather which unknowns? Who? Examine/analyze OAuth contract terms? Who? Examine/analyze existing Binding Obligations? Who? What are our key milestones in the final three months? Attending: Eve, Jon, Jeff, Adrian, Steve, Jim, Thomas, Scott, Dazza Steve Greenberg is a new UMAnitarian. He was in the technical game long ago, an LDAPer, an AOL employee, then into consent management (mostly recently at Privo doing delegated consent for parents — COPPA stuff). Jim notes that “A legal document - whether policy , consent or otherwise - is always "ours" in the sense that is belongs to and binds both parties. The problem is friction means that in practice it is more or less owned by one party. Goal should be to reduce and eliminate friction - which is to say to start a process of transparency.” So, in talking about Alice choosing "her own AS”, we should be aware that, while technically, she does choose, in practice some business models disempower her more over some others. Famously, most people don’t read the privacy policy, even though they’re bound by it. There are often clauses in a contract that are there because you’re afraid to take it out. (There are 1M lawyers in the US!) Real standards have the advantage of eliminating much of the friction and imbalance. This is where our work can come in. Jim advocates modularity here, in the model of open-source with forking and agile methods and iteration and so on. It’s how you can “get to something like yes” on exceedingly complex matters efficiently and quickly. Committees (people!) don’t help. An operating document that works today, for now, is what’s needed. This sounds like a “good enough for now” principle, with versioning to allow change later. In law, the "operative thing” would be, say, a privacy policy; that’s the “object” that has to be tracked and versioned. Jon speaks in favor of giving the parties on both sides "something to work with”, which speeds the process. It’s not just about machine readability. And it’s not even just about “empowering Alice”. Adrian brings up Bitcoin as an example of how to enable dynamicism in a “free love” way. Scott speaks in favor of modularity as a cause and an engine. The commodities market runs on it; so we could coax a market into being and stabilization. Business people who don’t care about code will find these examples resonating. Steve mentions Creative Commons as well. With lots of unknowns in this data market, let’s stabilize it. For a long time, Eve has talked about Alice’s disempowerment in terms of human-vs-company and client-vs-browser — and also “contract of adhesion”. But apparently the latter is too strong a statement in legal terms. It’s more like she’s just following the crowd and that’s a constraint and compulsion. We’re seeing that business model #2 starts to be one end of a continuum that ends in #3, if we can more fully empower Alice to “choose her AS” through contract and enable more dynamic business relationships through our work here. In notice and consent, there has always been a feeling of “take it or leave it”. Eve’s hope in the original Binding Obs work was to turn Alice’s enforceable service terms in using a website and sharing her PII with it into Bob’s enforceable service terms for accessing her stuff. Jim notes: Pragmatically, a good way to get the dynamic of codification going would be to list the kinds of documents that are currently used, find a couple of examples of each, do outlines for each of them, and begin to populate. Scott advocates leveraging selfish interest. RO-RqP: The use cases tend to be “delegation", “share", "give access to”, “purpose of use”, “meaningful use"… (Scott warns to be careful to distinguish “assignment of rights in the delegation of duties” / “assignment of rights and duties”). RS-AS: Jim: From perspective of the merchant, regulatory compliance is a concern. A modular approach to text can take much of the burden off of them. Because it can be shared and scrutinized in a general context instead of them having to wing it. This is where a lot of regulations seem to come in - healthcare, merchant, etc., where modularity could help - an IoT hardware vendor may insist on “owning” the data and where it goes (?) - maybe also just web apps, as in Ashley Madison (RTBF)? Example terms: http://my.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=D/Fridge/MyFridge_G… <http://my.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=D/Fridge/MyFridge_G…> Jon notes that connected cars are most difficult, but with wearables, there are questions about communications between devices and the (e.g.) “house fog” (a house cloud — this is a Cisco term <http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/trends/iot/fog-computing.html> . Would the controls over it be UMA controls? Adrian has a great example <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8909568/MMS%20May%207%20AG.pdf> of ICD data communications using the “house fog” model. Dazza observes that there’s a localization of control — there’s still a question of who owns and controls the systems, all the way up. Buying a disconnected fridge and taking it home means you can do whatever you want to it. But in Europe, there’s “moral rights” that still connect the creator of the thing to the thing — the shoemaker to the shoes, the painter to the painter (“preference for restraint on alienation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_on_alienation> or something like that?). With IoT, it’s thus like inviting hackers into one’s living room because of the net connection! RO-AS: What contract terms might be relevant here? Jim: Could we make a list of docs that we think Alice is confronted with in the course of a year or two of banging around in this field? If UMA is about the human being at the center, and we’re focusing on zones that are private (looking at Anglo-American law), and the body, home, and car are places that are particularly relevant for privacy, and there is real market demand for privacy… Scott: In the US, the Fourth Amendment protects one on one’s home. Bringing a sensor into the home is inviting an intruder into “information space”/cyberspace/Internet space, which is a new important kind of space alongside physical space. We don’t yet have rules for this; UMA enables having rules for that new space. He recommends treating this as privatized space: like putting a sign up that says “This is the private property of X”. Next steps: Everyone please contribute “mile-wide, inch-deep examples on contract terms examples across all three meta-use cases — at least one of each kind — for next week. Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

2 4

Reminder: UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-02
by Eve Maler 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Hi folks — Would love to have folks representin’ on the call tomorrow! Can you please RSVP to me in private email (and/or respond to the calendar invitation if you haven’t already)? Tom, let me know if you’re still not getting list email. There are several messages that go out per week, so if you haven’t seen any, there’s still a bug… Thanks! Eve Fri Oct 2 8-9am PT Voice: Skype: +99051000000481 or US +1-805-309-2350 (international dial-in lines <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>), room code 178-2540# Screen sharing: http://join.me/findthomas <http://join.me/findthomas> - NOTE: IGNORE the join.me <http://join.me/> dial-in line shown here in favor of the dial-in info above (Kantara "line C" and the Skype line) UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar> Check on AI status: [DONE <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/wiki/UMA-Legal:-Business-Models>] Business model wiki page [DONE <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/wiki/UMA-Legal:-Examples-of-Ter…>] Collection of sources of contract terms for getting OAuth client credentials Jon: Thoughts on IoT liability tensions Determine roughly what our outputs should look like Develop a list of unknowns without which we can’t finish our work How to prioritize the rest of the work? Gather which unknowns? Who? Examine/analyze OAuth contract terms? Who? Examine/analyze existing Binding Obligations? Who? What are our key milestones in the final three months? Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

1 0