Ken, you are mostly right but there are other, much larger problems I've discovered in working with UMA in the real-life environment of health records. The biggest problem, by far, in the definition is "an individual a unified control point". This is widely ignored in practice. The systems being discussed could easily end up with a separate AS for every RS or at least a separate AS for every industry or region. This is completely unnecessary from a privacy perspective and confuses the "autonomy" of the individual in a privacy perspective.

The second large problem is "use". It's perfectly reasonable for UMA to stay away from storage and disposal for all sorts of obvious reasons. It is not reasonable, from a privacy perspective for UMA to avoid providing notice of use to the individual via their AS. In healthcare and many other domains the "internal" sharing of information is obfuscated for all sorts of reasons on a massive scale. Some of these involve pretending to de-identify high-dimensional data resources that can, and are, re-identified and aggregated later. There are many other uses where notice and transparency of use is not allowed.

These are the kind of things UMA should do at the base of the standard according to privacy engineering. Other, more complicated things like multiple ASs or complex, validated claims gathering would be layered on in the privacy engineering sequence. 

If we ignore privacy engineering, then we end up trying to fix things on the legal side and just add more confusion and adoption barriers.

Adrian

On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Ken Dagg <kendaggtbs@gmail.com> wrote:


Eve and other,

Thank you for your responses. While I agree fully that heading down the rathole of definitions is a tricky and dangerous endeavour, I also strongly believe that it is a necessary exercise (at least to some level of detail). I would encourage UMA to continue. I will also bring the question of defining Privacy to IAWG whose mandate, since it took over the Privacy WG a couple of years ago, includes Privacy.

That being said, your note said that UMA is "an OAuth-based protocol designed to give an individual a unified control point for authorizing who and what can get access to their digital data, content, and services, no matter where all those things live." While I have heard this before it finally sunk in and I think that understand what I have been missing before.

In my mind the key point is the phrase "for authorizing who and what can get access to". In my interpretation that is access to collect - be that for a millisecond examination or for the long term. In other words, also in my interpretation, UMA does nothing for controlling the storage, use or disposal of personally identifiable information. That is not a denunciation of UMA - it is just a statement of what I think I just realized. Am I correct?

If my eureka moment is true my suggestion would be to include an explicit statement in the description of UMA that says that controlling the storage, use and disposal of PII is outside the scope of UMA and the responsibility of other protocols / processes. It may seem to be redundant but I think that this type of statement would get people away from the idea that UMA might be the "silver bullet" to fix their privacy woes that they are all looking to discover. While I've not heard anyone ever say that it is, given the increased emphasis on privacy, I could see some executives making that interpretation.

Again, just my opinion.

Ken




On Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
Privacy by Design always makes me think of the Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

I like NIST's definition of privacy engineering: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/nistir-8062/nistir_8062_draft.pdf

If by "narrow" and "medium" ecosystems you mean federations that agree to share an AS, then I understand but that hardly counts as autonomy and it sounds more like an add-on service to an IdP than a new thing. I suppose I just answered my own question about the product :-)



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:14 PM, John Wunderlich <john@wunderlich.ca> wrote:
Adrian;

Think of it as Privacy by Intent, since it as as much about organizational cultural change and processes as it is about any specific technology.

Sincerely,
John Wunderlich
(@PrivacyCDN)

On Feb 3, 2016, at 21:51, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:

The video is lovely. "nothing about me without me" has been a rallying cry of the Society for Participatory Medicine for years now.

The Venn is somewhat confusing. What is policy? Who's policy is it ?

What ForgeRock is selling is baffling. Who is buying AS from ForgeRock? How many UMA Authorization Servers will one person have? Who will own my AS in the sense of being able to take it off-line if they choose to?

PS: Privacy by Design has never sat well with me. I prefer Privacy Engineering, but that's maybe a personal problem for me.

Adrian

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
FWIW, I debuted a new, very lightweight Venn diagram in a blog post last week (where ForgeRock was announcing its new platform version with UMA support!) describing elements of privacy. It's not to be taken too literally, but it echoes themes I talked about in this paper and talk from last year.


Eve Maler
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Ken Dagg <kendaggtbs@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi UmanitRians,

I'm an UMA lurker. That being said, the discussion around privacy is something of great interest to me and I couldn't resist chiming in.

Dictionary definitions, such as the dictionary.com definition below, (not that I'm totally in agreement with these definitions) all seem to revolve around privacy being a state (this part I do agree with) and legislation from various jurisdictions provide requirements to achieve this state (without providing a definition of privacy).

For example, Canada's two pieces of privacy legislation (Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)) basically specify what must be achieved regarding the collection, storage, use and disposal of Personally Identifiable Information (as well as defining what PII is) including what and where consent is required.

I would suggest that defining privacy without defining the requirements (including consent) for achieving it would be negligent and doing a disservice to UMA. 

My two cents,
Ken 

1. the state of being apart from other people orconcealed from their view; solitude; seclusion: (Please leave the room and give me some privacy.)
2. the state of being free from unwanted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs; freedom to be let alone: (Tourists must respect the tribe’s privacy. Those who wish to smoke can do so in the privacy of their own homes.) See also invasion of privacy. 
3. freedom from damaging publicity, public scrutiny,secret surveillance, or unauthorized disclosure ofone’s personal data or information, as by agovernment, corporation, or individual: (Ordinary citizens have a qualified right to privacy. There is so much information about us online that personal privacy may be a thing of the past.)
4. the state of being concealed; secrecy: (Before he told us of his plans, he insisted on total privacy.)




On Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
I don't think there is any UMA publication that defines privacy, but there is one (older) publication that discusses UMA with respect to Privacy by Design, here:


I was thinking recently that it might be a good time to revise this paper, and/or write a new and more expanded one, in light of the many regulatory moves being made and discussions about the role of "consent" (as UMA enables) within those regulations. (I happen to have been doing a lot of writing and presenting along those lines in various forms myself lately, and others of us such as Jon Neiditz have as well.)


Eve Maler
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl


On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:07 AM, arr@worldknowledgebank.com <arr@worldknowledgebank.com> wrote:

Is there an uma definition of privacy?

 

Regards,

 

Ann Racuya-Robbins

 

 

 

 

 

“When you share what you know in a just way

you sustain life and transform the way the world works.”

 

Ann Racuya-Robbins

Founder

Virtual Democratic Countries

https://www.worldknowledgebank.com

 

4440 Willard Ave #729

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

and

2 Placita Road, La Puebla, Espanola, New Mexico 87532

 

202.304.7103, 505.216.5343, 301.951.1809

 

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.

 




--
Kenneth Dagg
Independent Consultant
Identification and Authentication
613-825-2091
kendaggtbs@gmail.com


_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma




--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma



This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.



--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/


--
Kenneth Dagg
Independent Consultant
Identification and Authentication
613-825-2091
kendaggtbs@gmail.com


--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/