privacycg/admin

Administrivia for the Privacy Community Group

admin's Issues

Charter now links to our security and privacy vulnerability reporting policy

This is a minor change to our Work Mode.

This will be discussed on our next call. We'll leave the announcement up until then.

Various charter changes

We landed a few mall charter changes a while ago, in PRS privacycg/privacycg.github.io#38 and privacycg/privacycg.github.io#39. The changes are:

• IsLoggedIn is now the Login Status API.
  • also, Melanie is no longer an editor.
• Add CHIPS as a Work Item.
• Remove First-Party Sets as a Work Item.
• Martin's replaced Tanvi as co-chair.

We'll briefly talk about these changes on our upcoming call.

Consider moving to Matrix

TC39 and WHATWG are (slowly) migrating to Matrix (from IRC). It's somewhat competitive with Slack I'd say and more in the spirit of open standards. It also doesn't require invites. Is this something the Privacy CG can consider adopting?

(Big benefit for me personally would be to reduce the number of open browser tabs. 😊)

Using the 1st party cookie as 3rd party cookie will blocked?

I working on the adTech company,
I have a question about using 1st party cookie.

Some company using 1st party cookie like this:

1. User accesses media.com
2. For agree 'collection cookie', Users are moving to ad.com's privacy policy page
3. ad.com reads the user id cookie. if user id cookie is not available, ad.com create cookie (1st party cookie)
4. When redirect media.com, ad.com will send cookie information as parameter
5. media.com does not have cookie, will generate. (1st party cookie)

I think this seems like 3rd party cookie, but it works well.
It there any plans to block this kind of stuff?

Create a template repository for new deliverables

GitHub documentation: https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/creating-a-template-repository

Use the contents of https://github.com/privacycg/proposals/tree/master/examples for it.

New Work Item: First-Party Sets

First-Party Sets is now a Work Item of the Privacy Community Group, with @krgovind (Google) and @davidben (Google) as editors.

It was proposed in privacycg/proposals#17.

This announcement will be left up until our next teleconference.

Make it possible to generate privacycg specs with Bikeshed

I've submitted a PR that does this: speced/bikeshed#1595 and will close this issue when it lands.

Google analytics opt/out iOS

Why isn’t there a Google Analytics opt-out app in the App Store or a Safari extension for the iPhone?

Charter update: Private Click Measurement and an editor change

The proposal to adopt Private Click Measurement as a work item of the Privacy CG with @johnwilander as editor, privacycg/proposals#1, is accepted. The @privacycg/chairs worked with @WICG's chairs to transfer the repository (see WICG/admin#93).

Our charter has been updated in privacycg/privacycg.github.io@d53c17d to list this new work item (see privacycg/privacycg.github.io#17).

One other charter update was also made today: the @privacycg/chairs appointed @hober co-editor of the Storage Access API.

These updates will be discussed on our next call, and we'll leave this announcement up for a week so everyone has a chance to see it.

Join us

Hi,
I would like to join the team and contribute the researches. But I dont have credentials for login page at "join us" link. Could you guide to deal with this issue?

Various charter updates

Since the group launch, we've received a whole bunch of feedback on the group's charter. We've recently updated the charter based on this feedback.

You can find a summary of the interesting changes below. There were also various typos, small fixes, and other minor changes. See the commit for the full diff.

We'll leave this announcement up for a week and will discuss it on the next call.

Process updates

• The charter now documents the existing process of how proposals get made. (This was previously documented in our proposals repo.)
• The charter spells out more of the day-to-day responsibilities of the chairs.
• The charter now defines how the chairs formally notify the group of things. This is simply documenting our existing workflow.
• Chairs must notify the group when removing work items.
• We're no longer constrained to a maximum of three chairs.

Terminology updates

• The charter now uses the term "work item" where previously it said "deliverable".

Other updates

• The group's mission now cites the W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles.
• We dropped a sentence that read "Implementation disagreement should not result in implementation-defined behavior or optional features". While it may make sense as a requirement later in the standards process, we probably don't need such a rule up front.

Charter update

We published an updated charter today which contains a number of improvements.

• Formalizes the role of Proposal Champion, which is similar to in TC39.
• Modify the rules for how Work Items get adopted, modified, and removed.
• Drop our bespoke definition of "implementer," since the rules for adding/modifying/removing Work Items no longer depend on it.

This change was landed in commit 3b2018d by merging PR privacycg/privacycg.github.io#26.

As with all announcements, we'll talk about this on our next telcon, and will leave this notice up for at least a week.

Minor charter revision

We revised the charter today to make two changes:

1. We added Johann to the list of Storage Access API editors,
2. and we added the Storage standard to the list of potential destinations of the Storage Access API.

We'll leave this announcement up until the next telcon.

Relevant links

• The latest charter
• The PR for the revision

Create a .github repo with default community health files

It should probably minimally have SECURITY.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md files in it. Perhaps also CONTRIBUTING.md.

Here's the documentation.

See also this comment from @jyasskin.

---

• Create .github repo
• Write CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
• Write SECURITY.md
• Write CONTRIBUTING.md

Personalized advertising and privacy policies

Hi,

First thank you for making these discussions possible under the W3C.

A few Criteo employees attended the virtual face to face a couple of weeks ago, and we've been very interested by the privacy policies presentations.

We'd like to better understand each of the browsers' position on advertising and user privacy, and have a couple of questions to that end.

There were several references to personalized web advertising in the presentations. Is the demise of personalized web advertising a target of user privacy policies or an unintended possible consequence of preventing user data collection by third parties?

To give a concrete example, let's say that there's a way to do personalized advertising without third party user data collection. Would that be against browsers' respective privacy policies?

New Work Item: The IsLoggedIn API

The IsLoggedIn API is now a Work Item of the Privacy Community Group, with @johnwilander (Apple) and @melanierichards (Microsoft) as editors.

It was proposed in privacycg/proposals#16.

This announcement will be left up until our next teleconference.

Data sharing with third party

Hi,

Following this issue here is the second question - opening up a second one for the sake of clarity.

Some browsers' privacy policies, or the W3C Privacy Threat Model for instance, make references to user expectations.

In the scope of these privacy policies and from a user expectation perspective, under which conditions a first party would be authorized to share user data with a third party?

2020-04-02 charter updates

We published an updated charter today which contains a number of improvements:

• like the proposals repo's README.md already states, the charter now says that Proposals produce explainers, and Work Items produce explainers and specifications;
• spell out what Proposals and Work Items are in terms of the W3C Community and Business Group Process;
• clarify that the purpose of specification is to achieve independent, interoperable implementations;
• clarified that the rules around feature additions and removals are for Work Items, not Proposals;
• and the Chairs are now required to ensure that contributions to Proposals are only made by participants who have agreed to the CLA.

These changes were landed in PRs privacycg/privacycg.github.io#14, privacycg/privacycg.github.io#19, and privacycg/privacycg.github.io#21. You can see the combined diff here.

As with all announcements, we'll talk about this on our next telcon, and will leave this notice up for at least a week.

Client-Side Storage Partitioning is now a Work Item of the Privacy CG

It was proposed by @othermaciej in privacycg/proposals#4.

Our charter has been updated to reflect this in privacycg/privacycg.github.io@fe69d9a (from PR privacycg/privacycg.github.io#24).

We'll leave this announcement up for a week and will discuss it on our call this Thursday.

The Storage Access API is now a deliverable of the Privacy CG

Our charter has been updated to reflect this.

We'll leave this announcement up through the next call.

Teleconference meeting information is wrong?

I just joined the group yesterday, and feel that I may have missed a call this morning.

Which is confusing because the only information I found on when calls take place is in the meetings README https://github.com/privacycg/meetings/blob/master/2020/telcons/README.md
Which states "The Privacy CG meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of each month, at noon Boston time (EDT)."

However, I started looking back at mailing list archives and there is a suggestion that there was a call today
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2020OctDec/0027.html
but that email doesn't actually contain any call information, so if I had seen it, would I have used the call information in the README (which suggests the zoom link is https://mozilla.zoom.us/j/769153986)

So my question is, if I want to participate in the calls, when are they, and where is the most up to date information about them.

Thanks,
-Anthony