http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+notes... 2016-10-14 - Working session on User-Managed Access (UMA) in Contractual and Regulatory Contexts <https://docs.google.com/a/wunderlich.ca/document/d/1HGM5-PoJFMnepyrTX91hqHKQ-qNgNxgQjkzqod7Otto/edit?usp=sharing> - Working through use cases per party in the transaction – see last week's notes for the pattern Attending: Eve, John W, Adrian, Kathleen, Mark, Mary, Sal Adrian points to this fascinating article introducing the notion of an "information fiduciary <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/information-fiduciary/502346/>". We discussed the merits of this phrase vs. "agent"; in the past, we've had feedback that "agent" is an accurate legal concept, but too academic. Mark concurs. Some give feedback that "fiduciary" may be helpful has a concept. It does have a connotation of totality of trust. This is sitting pretty well with quite a few use cases. What if our model text, if adopted as a whole by an ecosystem, would confer a kind of "safe harbor" (see the reference to this concept in the article) that lets the various service roles declare that they are "fiduciaries" of specific kinds on behalf of the resource owner/Resource Subject. At the least, we could advocate for this to be a standard interpretation among the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework developers, the GDPR regulators, etc. We're thinking that the budget we have available to use – and must be used by end of year – would best be used in a completion of this analysis. In fact, do we want to take BCRs and turn them into our text, or go in the other direction, or what? We have defined *Resource Subject* with our eyes open to the analogy with Data Subject. Does it make sense to have *Resource Controller* instead of Resource Server Operator? This seems relatively close, by analogy to Data Controller. But then again, from a rights-granting perspective (where the DS is the rights-holder on whatever basis and the DC works under constraints set by the DS) and what we've done with the design of UMA, we have perhaps split out the Data Controller role into two with our RS and AS. This is part of the innovation of UMA. And then what about *Resource Processor*, analogously to Data Processor, for the Client Operator? Is disclosure of data always for some purpose that is "on the DS's behalf", or is it sometimes for the autonomous use of the access recipient? Eve wonders if the "behalf" distinction is just a way of saying that liability, or responsibility, or accountability, is really strong or has a lot of components to it. As long as the regulatory/contractual layer above the technical UMA layer can capture the subtleties of the liability (such as "you can only share this data after a certain time") or even the technical layer can capture some constraints (such as "sharing will end at this time" or "you cannot write data back to the server, only read it from the server"), then the entire requesting side – both client and requesting party (however each ultimately get split out in "party" terms) – could constitute the Data Processor. What about the challenge of "on-sharing", or re-sharing, or downstream sharing constraints? Here are some thoughts: - If there is a narrow ecosystem where all users are using the *same* AS, it's very easy to manage this, because the (singular) AS can keep track, and then you (the RS that publishes APIs) could theoretically invent something like a "no re-sharing" scope on your APIs and then let people set this when they share. (Think of Google Apps's similar "Advanced" feature.) Such a scope, if that's the right place to put it, maybe could be a standard "best practice" scope in various APIs. - In a medium or wide ecosystem, where everyone uses (say) a different AS, John points out that Alice could at least monitor sharing through a ledger mechanism (he can send the diagram to the group), but you'd need something like encryption or DRM technology above UMA to actually control the re-sharing. John mentions J-LINC and Sal mentions COALA <http://coala.global/working-groups/>. *AI:* Eve: If feasible, approach Scott D about the possibility of more focused work to complete our use cases and terminology and analysis around DS/DP/DC. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl