Re: [perpass] privacy implications of UUIDs for IoT devices

On 10/14/16 12:28 PM, Robin Wilton wrote:
> +1, plus a small further comment: Paul says "if this feature didn't exist, we'd have to invent an overt equivalent" as if that's a bad thing.
>
>>From my perspective, that kind of design decision ought always to be an overt one - especially where, as Stephen implies, an occasional use-case (trouble-shooting) is used as the justification for a permanent default with privacy implications (linkable, semantically-loaded MAC address).

I'm ok with that. There may be a period when stuff people need to do 
gets harder because the new ways of doing it with privacy haven't yet 
been invented.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> I recommend Michelle Dennedy's book, The Privacy Engineer's Manifesto, and Sarah Spiekermann's book on Value-based Design, for useful and informative guidance in this area.
>
> Hope this is of use,
> Robin
>
> Robin Wilton
>
> Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
>
> On 14 Oct 2016, at 17:07, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 14/10/16 15:55, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>>
>>> When looking at devices seen on WiFi the vendor ID is often displayed
>>> and used to figure out which device is which, to correlate problem
>>> symptoms with likely causes, and many other reasons.
>>
>> How often? Compared to how often those are uselessly sent?
>> (With the privacy downsides applying in all cases.)
>>
>> I'm not saying that the "I need to debug stuff" arguments
>> for access to information are baseless, but I do think we
>> (techies) to better consider the privacy implications of
>> things like that.
>>
>> S.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> perpass mailing list
>> perpass@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>