Did you know that "privacy" is the one link that appears on every page hosted by google?
(Okay, not really, but it's pretty darn close.) There's a good reason for this, and it sets a very good example. So +1 to putting the link in the footer on openid.net. And on every site. -DeWitt On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:32 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]>wrote: > Please no. There are very few parts of the site which people are actually > interacting with and where we accept data. I'm fine with this on pages for > things like the membership tool and wiki. > > --David > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]>wrote: > >> They look good. >> >> In addition, I feel that it is a good practice to put privacy policy link >> as a footer item in every page as well. >> In our case, right next to "Contact Us" in the footer. >> >> =nat >> >> >> (2010/01/28 10:00), John Ehrig wrote: >> >> Darin at Refresh mocked up a couple of options for the higher visibility >> location for the privacy policy (attached). Thoughts? >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >> *On Behalf Of *John Ehrig >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:51 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] OIDF Privacy Policy >> >> >> >> Actually, we already do have an approved and actively in use OIDF privacy >> policy (see the attached). A couple of issues: >> >> 1) It is buried in the membership portal and only viewable when you first >> sign up as a new member (which is why it took me so long to track it down) >> >> 2) It seems to be written specifically as a member privacy policy (which >> may not really be an issue if we are ok with it as is for that purpose) >> >> >> >> I can immediately fix issue #1 by posting it in an easy to find/view page. >> >> >> >> >> Longer term, we can use this existing policy as a stating point if we want >> to improve or broaden it within the legal or privacy committee. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >> *On Behalf Of *John Bradley >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:00 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] OIDF Privacy Policy >> >> >> >> I think that it would be fine to post redacted versions. >> >> >> >> I suspect that a page with the companies and individuals who have signed >> up for WG is probably more useful than the scanned agreements themselves. >> >> >> >> I made a IPR declaration three years ago when the OIDF was formed and the >> PAPE WG started. I don't recall anyone telling me it was going to be >> scanned and posted. >> >> >> >> I like most people haven't thought about it in a while because there >> haven't been new WG. >> >> >> >> If we are going to publish information that people give us we need to make >> that clear at the time of collection. >> >> >> >> We may be violating privacy laws outside the US. I would prefer to make >> sure it is not an issue for the membership. >> >> >> >> John B. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2010-01-27, at 2:47 PM, Mike Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> It would be fine to post digital images with the signatures and address >> information redacted – possibly by overlaying them with “Information on file >> with OIDF” or something of that sort. (Sort of how elevators often contain >> messages about the elevator license being on file at such-and-such place.) >> >> >> >> -- Mike >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >> ] *On Behalf Of *David Recordon >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:40 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] OIDF Privacy Policy >> >> >> >> Hey John, >> >> I'm happy to have us reconsider the policy. >> >> >> >> The idea is to make it incredibly transparent around who has signed what >> (when it comes to IP). So far you're the first person in three years to say >> anything about it. >> >> >> >> Considering that there can be different versions of documents and some >> documents with options, scanning them as PDFs seemed like the easiest and >> most accurate method. 99% of the time it's also companies signing the >> agreements and using corporate addresses versus personal. >> >> >> >> If Global Inventures is able to manage these agreements and keep up to >> date online records, I'm less worried about each agreement >> being available online. >> >> >> >> That said, they should be made available upon request. >> >> >> >> --David >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:07 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In the process of setting up the AX 1.1 WG a number of things have come to >> light. >> >> One is some confusion around who needs to submit what sort of agreement, >> Personal or Company. >> Perhaps our new Secretary can have a look at that. >> >> The more important one is that the OIDF has a practice of positing scanned >> documents publicly including peoples signature. >> >> A number of us don't think publicly posting our address info with a scan >> of our signature is such a good idea. >> >> I think everyone agrees that who has signed contribution agreements and >> what WG they apply to should be public. >> >> However there are ways to do that are less subject to identity theft and >> other issues. >> >> I would like to recommend that one of our committees (perhaps the legal >> one) or a sub committee. >> >> Review and publish the OIDF privacy policy and specifically if practices >> like posting members PII publicly are appropriate. >> >> The board can then consider those recommendations. >> >> In the interim I would like GlobalInventures to redact my signature from >> any and all of the IPR agreements they publish. >> >> I don't think we can be credible respecting peoples right to privacy on >> the internet if we don't do a credible job with our own members. >> >> There may be other privacy issues I am not currently aware of as well. >> >> I think being proactive about privacy can only increase participation from >> the community in general. >> >> Regards >> John B. >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing >> [email protected]http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura ([email protected]) >> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. >> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
