Re: [WG-UMA] Pokemon teaches us why all of us will need our own Authorization Server

How would you have the individual control what personal data is accessed and how it’s used? I want to reframe this outside Pokemon Go, because it’s too easy to get into what the various BigCos involved could have done right or better, within their current systems — over which our personal control is entirely a grace of what they allow. We’re trying here (in ProjectVRM anyway) to start with the individual, and her controls. How can we build outward from there? Doc

On Jul 14, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Justin Richer wrote:

Pokemon Go’s issue wasn’t a problem with the AS, though. It was a problem of the developer asking for too many scopes — more than they needed to run the app. It’s really, really easy to overreach. And when people brought it up as an issue? The developer scaled back almost immediately.

Having my own AS wouldn’t have stopped or helped any of that and it’s silly to think otherwise.

— Justin

...

On Jul 14, 2016, at 4:49 PM, Adrian Gropper mailto:agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:

Hi Kazue,

Thank you much for turning this up. It's an even stronger example of why we can't trust any authorization server we don't specify (and can change) ourselves.

Folks may remember that I recently posted about a similar experience with my Dropbox where I had no recollection of allowing Microsoft Word full access to my entire Dropbox. The mechanism that allowed that to happen may be different than Pokemon's link to Google, but that hardly matters.

Frankly, I find it amazing that the UMA group, the HEART group, and even VRM are still treating the user-specified authorization server as a "nice-to-have" MAY instead of a MUST. As far as I'm concerned, the only sustainable path for both OAuth and VRM is to build on top of a user-specified authorization server.

I have referred to this as: "There's only one Alice." Standards like UMA, HEART, and VRM that don't take this as a given are unlikely to scale or to drive competition and substitutability that make for an effective standard.

Adrian

On Thursday, July 14, 2016, Kazue Sako mailto:k-sako@ab.jp.nec.com> wrote: Hi Andrian and Doc,

This seems to have an interesting point regarding use of OAuth where many people here are familiar with.

A friend of mine showed me an interesting link. http://ericrafaloff.com/pokemon-go-and-google/ http://ericrafaloff.com/pokemon-go-and-google/

As google is using OAuth, the usual flow should show the user a consent screen. Yet this was not the case with Pokemon Go.

...

Meaning authorization servers by big companies acting on persons’ behalf. In this case Nintendo (Pokemon Go parent) and Google.

Actually, Pokemon Go was developed by a company called Niantic which was a part of Google at the time they developed Ingress (according to the link above).

Kazue Sako

________________________________________

...

On Jul 13, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Adrian Gropper javascript:;> wrote:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-all-the-data-pokemon-go-is-co... https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-all-the-data-pokemon-go-is-co...

Here’s the link without the tracking cruft:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-all-the-data-pokemon-go-is-co... https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-all-the-data-pokemon-go-is-co...

...

This may well have been a case of accidental social engineering but it makes the point that multiple random authorization servers will not scale.

Meaning authorization servers by big companies acting on persons’ behalf. In this case Nintendo (Pokemon Go parent) and Google.

...

If Pokemon wants access to my Google stuff, they need to ask my authorization server and not the one Google helpfully gave to me.

Meaning one you operate personally.

Does one exist? Do we have an example or a prototype among all our developments here? (I’m so snowed under looking at all of it that I confess to being a bit lost?in a good way.)

...

Is there any other alternative? How could Google's ever play both sides as both game developer and privacy protector?

That’s the right question. The answer has to come from our sovereign personal whatever (authorization server is a good term, but it needs to be distinguished from the same operated by giant companies playing both sides).

And the Castle Doctrine needs to apply. <http://bit.ly/3stldoc http://bit.ly/3stldoc> or <http://j.mp/cstl3 http://j.mp/cstl3>

Doc

...

Adrian

--

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/ http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/

--

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/ http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org mailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

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