James;Nice derivation from the GDPR, and I'm already considering using the skeleton with some clients interested in EU compliance and looking for a PIPEDA equivalent in Canada. +1That being said 5(1)(b) talks about specific purposes. How do you propose (or do you?) to template or list the purposes that the entity has for processing and to articulate the differences between those purposes that are necessary and those that are optional? Further how do you distinguish or articulate or identify personal data that requires consent and which data and/or purposes is processed under authorities other than consent (Article 6).I know you call it a skeleton, and as above I think it's terrific. But creating a meaningful privacy notice (noting that what is normally published for customers as a privacy policy is actually a privacy notice and that a privacy policy is an internal document to provide guidance and procedures to staff) will require an understanding of the actual and specific purposes and uses of that data (or categories of data). This will mean, I think, adding purposes, uses, and authority to the template.I note the complexity of matching multiple data categories to multiple purposes under multiple authorities. If the entity collects 3 categories of information, for three different purposes, under 3 different authorities you end up with 3^3 or 27 different personal data-purpose-authority scenarios. Even if you don't do this level of granularity for the privacy notice, if you are the DPO, you would want to map them out so that you can identify null set scenarios and prioritize and manage risk for the rest - partially by ensuring the the significant scenarios are included in the privacy notice published.John Wunderlich,
Sent frum a mobile device,
Pleez 4give speling erurz
"...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin_____________________________
From: James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] Notes from UMA legal telecon 2016-09-02
To: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
Cc: Deborah Peel <dpeelmd@patientprivacyrights.org >, wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG <wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org>Skeleton of a Privacy Policy derived from the GDPR:On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:It can be seen as a conversation. There are large-scale actors (e.g., companies and governments) and small scale (e.g., individuals, families, friends) and all sizes in between. The large ones are assisted in the conversation, the small ones less so, often not at all and often only indirectly by friends, reputations or legal protections.Working text as chains - with provenance and targets for collaboration, rating, comment, law - can improve communication in the conversation.There are strong reasons for collective action (such as the GDPR) and also strong reasons for small-scale autonomy (adaptation to circumstance, avoidance monoculture, maintenance of habits and benefits of people deciding things for themselves).My expectation of text-chains (e.g. CommonAccord) is that they will accelerate some kinds of displacements, but my hope is that they will also reduce the friction (cost, delay, risk) of small-scale self-governance, enabling smaller groups to retain independence instead of being overwhelmed by large scale.In any event, the document-orientation and extensibility mean that people can use the materials like they current use word-processed documents (the most decentralized system of self-governance we have), but with greater efficiency, aggregation of social knowledge and, to some extent, collective bargaining power.In an improvised way, I gave names to the various sections of the GDPR as a preliminary to experimenting with documents like privacy policies and data transfer agreements that build on the GDPR -On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:Nobody ever said that you were critical about CommonAccord.The issue I see is that there's lots of non-productive text pointing out that this group is failing to address the challenges you identify.I don't really understand the phrase "regulatory capture". Without regulations, organizations won't change en masse - those enlightened organizations may see some advantage in early action, but will be outliers until social norms (and eventually regulations) catch up to them. Kantara aims squarely at the needs of organizations within their markets - which includes regulators and customer/consumers/clients (and many other actors). I have not done an in-depth analysis of the state of regulation and the internet - but a cursory survey tells me that the unregulated spaces tend to spawn powerful walled-garden oligopolies or monopolies (Uber, Facebook, Google, etc) which are capture audiences in different ways.Stating that "Kantara" has a view on prioritizing industry versus individual interests is a false argument. Kantara's view and place in the ecosystem is the result of its members input and work. It has no organizational position or viewpoint of its own. Kantara provides innovators the tools and space and freedom to meet and discuss ways to change the world - neutral and open is the mantra.Will you lead a new Kantara Discussion Group to further explore the imbalances in the ecosystem that cause "industry interests" to trump "individual interests"? Because that's the mechanism to include topics like that in Kantara's scope. Trying to force other WGs to look at issues tangential to their mandates isn't going to work very well.You will get strong participation in such a DG - there are many in the Consent and Information Sharing, UMA, , myData, Personal Data Ecosystem, and other communities that would be enthusiastic contributors. The DG would be supported in writing a Kantara Report that assists the other DG/WG on understanding the issues and aligning correctly.What do you say? Charter up and get going?Andrew.Kantara Initiative Leadership Council ChairAndrew Hughes CISM CISSP
Independent Consultant
In Turn Information Management Consultingo +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
Identity Management | IT Governance | Information SecurityOn Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:My comment was in no way a criticism of CommonAccord. I have supported that project for years and it's still the only thing like it that I know of and it makes sense.My comment is critical of regulatory capture and the way we translate innovations like CommonAccord and regulatory initiatives like GDPR into industry practice. Governance is at the heart of the issue. The standards mechanism, including Kantara, is not set up to put individual and civil society interests above industry interests. Regulatory mechanisms like GDPR and the US "Meaningful Use" debacle are not set up to create standards. Regulatory capture is the result.The places I've experienced pushback on regulatory capture is UMA, (where, under Eve's leadership, we have consistently sought to widen the ecosystem and consider individual rights equal to institutional) and the blockchain communities where avoiding regulatory capture is a religion in itself.My comment, which was obviously unclear, was a call for us to consider the governance mechanisms that might result in creating structured and standardized privacy policies based on CommonAccord and GDPR.One place where we're trying to make a dent in this governance issue is W3C. The idea is to convene an outcome-driven community (not a standards-track process) designed to combine UMA and blockchain and other standards to create a "stack" of protocols that captures the fundamentals of privacy engineering and re-balances the power of individuals over institutions. W3C Verifiable Claims is another example of a standard that will be core to privacy engineering if it survives regulatory capture. You can read about this as paper #7 at http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/08/29/onc-announces-block (Hint: read paper #13 first to get a very nice introduction to why #7.)chain-challenge-winners.html AdrianOn Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:08 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks. I agree fully fully with both comments, except for the part where Adrian claims to disagree.Yes, the "end-user" (aka "human") gets a short list of diffs from some base (here a _very_ short list, on the CPBR policy.http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&f )ile=Wx/gov/whitehouse/OMB/Legi slative/Letters/cpbr-act-of-20 15/Policy/Acme_Privacy_Policy. 01.md Yes, there are different policies for different settings. The range of "settings" is vast - not only industry, but also jurisdiction and language, characteristics of the human (child, disabled, married, employed, related), etc. So the system needs to be extensible - a person on "the edge" can autonomously extend any existing end point and enrich the taxonomy.The GDPR provides an excellent base for this. I'll spin up a first-level repackaging and see how it goes.--On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:Well, given that GDPR is pan-EU and takes effect soon and has real financial penalties, I'd say that it's not a bad place to start.Rather than dismissing other's proposals, what do you propose instead?I'd love to see what you've got in mind to take the 10 pages down to the short versions. Also preferably text that works for non-US regulations.andrew.Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP
Independent Consultant
In Turn Information Management Consultingo +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
Identity Management | IT Governance | Information SecurityOn Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:The GDPR is useful but not enough. We need to see more companies compete on the basis of privacy the way they compete on cost or features. To enable that, we need privacy policies that are structured and standardized.A standards-type of organization would need to categorize the various kinds of information business and then write a standard privacy policy for that category. Businesses would be asked to self-assert a category and only list the exceptions for their business relative to the standard. Categories could be for banks, telecom, merchants, social media, multi-player games, health services, media distribution, government services, productivity software, home appliances, and a handful more. It's pretty easy to tell which category any given product or service is in terms of personal information handling as defined in the GDPR.
Within the categories, we would pull out and structure obvious features such as: is a standard API available for 100% of the private information they hold (like a calendar or email service do); how does the business provide transaction notification to users; prior notification of policy changes; does the business ever export de-identified individual level data; which national jurisdiction is data processed under; is there a right to immediate export and deletion including backups, what technologies are used to track users; and a few more like that.It would not take much to move from the 10-page privacy policies and terms of use we have today to a typical policy having 0 to 6 exceptions on a single mobile phone screen.From my perspective as a privacy advocate, simply working toward model clauses or applying CommonAccord to GDPR would be helpful but it could also be a distraction at a time when we need to make very rapid progress to avoid a crisis. Do we really believe that GDPR and HIPAA are the future or are they just the camel's nose under a very shaky tent?AdrianOn Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:05 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:Great work!As we considered "consent" vs other words in the conversation today, the GDPR's vocabulary seemed important, because it is likely to have great influence on privacy, in Europe and outside. http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&fi le=/Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/GDPR/ Comment/Consent/0.md A thought occurred to me - what if privacy policies and similar agreements relating to privacy mapped to the organization of provisions of the GDPR and reused, to the extent reasonable, the vocabulary of the GDPR. This would provide a base for a common taxonomy. The taxonomy would prove inadequate or undesirable, at least in detail, in many circumstances, but it is an influential starting place.Some time ago, I played with this notion in connection with the CPBR - the proposed US Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. Like the GDPR, the CPBR calls for organizations (like Kantara?) to create charters that can be used by companies. I played out the idea as a privacy policy that referenced a charter, which in turn mapped to (was mostly made from) the CPBR. The resulting privacy policy is goofy, but it demonstrates a chain-of-text that connects all the layers of the conversation.The GDPR has the additional advantage of being quite complete, actually enacted, available in many languages, etc.On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:______________________________http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+lega l+subgroup+notes#UMAlegalsubgr oupnotes-2016-09-02 2016-09-02
- Working session on User-Managed Access (UMA) in Contractual and Regulatory Contexts
- Eve will try to press ahead with lots of editing AIs prior to the call
- Adrian and Kathleen have sent various suggestions in list/private email in the last month we should review
Attending: Eve, Kathleen, Ann, John W, Mary, Jim
We did a ton of work in the document.
If you haven't seen it, the latest version of the slides with the "legal use cases" is here. Please feel free to share it.
See also Jim's CommonAccord capture of the GDPR.
_________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma --@commonaccord
_______________________________________________
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 @commonaccord
--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/ --@commonaccord--@commonaccord
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.