IMHO, returning everything if scope is empty is a violation of the
collection minimization principle. From the privacy by Design point of
view, a lazy programmer sending an empty request should not cause the
maximal data returned.

Now, as to the spec change is concerned, I agree with John that it is not
required.
However, a Best practice document would probably help the developers.

Nat

2015-07-22 11:19 GMT+02:00 John Bradley <[email protected]>:

> Slideshare did register all of those scopes as ones the client could ask
> for.
>
> Interpreting no scopes as all the ones the client has set as the ones it
> wants is probably not unreasonable.
>
> The problem is a combination of Slideshare over asking, perhaps because
> they don’t understand the default behaviour,  and LinkedIn now allowing
> only some of the scopes to be returned.
>
> I think people are moving back to allowing people to deselect scopes.   In
> Android m you can now deselect scopes that apps request, both at
> installation and after.
>
> One argument that people have put forward is that RP will ask for the
> minimum set of scopes to encourage the person to consent.   However it
> seems that many RP decide to grab the maximum permissions on the grounds
> that people agree to it.
>
> I don’t know that any spec change is required, but perhaps some sort of
> education is.
>
> If users decline all on a regular basis then the RP will be motivated to
> change.
>
> John B.
>
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Wow, that's the very opposite of Privacy by Design/Default recommendation.
>
>
> 2015-07-22 11:06 GMT+02:00 Justin Richer <[email protected]>:
>
>> According to the LinkedIn docs, that means they get all the scopes that
>> they registered for.
>>
>>  — Justin
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Maciej Machulak <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It seems that they don't ask for scopes.
>>
>> The parameter is left blank: scope=
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>> On 22 July 2015 at 10:26, Phil Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Do they explicitly ask for those scopes? Or do they leave scope to
>>> default that way.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:22, Justin Richer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a pretty clear case of SlideShare trying to grab too much. The
>>> LinkedIn API (which is their own proprietary thing, not OpenID Connect)
>>> does separate all the permissions into different scopes. However, the
>>> SlideShare app is asking for all of them, and LinkedIn doesn’t let you
>>> uncheck any boxes on the authorization screen.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the reason they want write access to your profile is to
>>> automatically add new SlideShare presentations that you upload to your
>>> LinkedIn profile page. You should still have the option of turning that
>>> off, or of turning on that functionality later.
>>>
>>>  — Justin
>>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Barry,
>>>
>>> From my observations with Facebook, it now has options added for you to
>>> select what resources from Facebook will get shared when authorizing access
>>> to other applications.  You can click on each of the possibilities and
>>> strip it down.  It appears to me that Facebook is managing that, so in your
>>> case, I *think* (and am open to be corrected) that LinkedIn needs to do
>>> something similar.  Without those options, I also cancel out and just don't
>>> use the other app.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kathleen
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yesterday, someone sent me a link to some presentation slides that
>>>> he'd posted to SlideShare.  I looked at them, and wanted to download
>>>> them as a PDF.  In order to let me do that, SlideShare wants me to log
>>>> in.  It gives me the options to log in via LinkedIn or Facebook.  As
>>>> I'm one of the three people in the world without a Facebook account, I
>>>> clicked "LinkedIn".  That got me an OAuth authorization screen, image
>>>> attached.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I don't know if this is SlideShare's fault for asking for too
>>>> much, or LinkedIn's fault for not providing enough granularity for
>>>> requests, but just LOOK at that list of what I'd be giving SlideShare
>>>> access to.  The first few make sense: read my profile (the whole thing
>>>> or pieces of it, including contact information).  But... access to my
>>>> connections?  I'm not sure they'd like my exposing their identities to
>>>> SlideShare.  Access to my private messages?  EDIT MY PROFILE?  Srsly?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this isn't the fault of the OAuth protocol, really (though
>>>> one might argue that there's not enough guidance provided).  But,
>>>> really, with implementations like this, I have to wonder what they're
>>>> thinking.
>>>>
>>>> I clicked "Cancel", of course, and asked the slide creator to send me a
>>>> PDF.
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Kathleen
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Maciej Machulak
>> email: [email protected]
>> mobile: +44 7999 606 767 (UK)
>> mobile: +48 602 45 31 66 (PL)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>  _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to