Yes, but people give Google data, often personal data, with every interaction. That's very different than the OpenID site.
I don't care enough to argue, so go for it if you feel strongly. --David On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40 PM, DeWitt Clinton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
