Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Security and nationality

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:21:43 -0800

Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> --
>> Languages and language variations are often closely associated with
>> specific social, national, or ethnic affinities. Thus, language tags
>> used in content negotiation, like other information exchanged on the
>> Internet, might be a source of concern because they might be used to
>> infer information about the sender and thus identify potential targets
>> for surveillance.
>> --
> 
> Okay.  Jukka's proposal is also fine (maybe a bit long).  I like the
> keyword "private" in Stephane's version (Jukka has "personal", you've
> only "information").
> 

One's language preference in a request header is hardly "private" 
information. The whole point of having an Accept-Language header is 
sharing that information in requests. "Personal" is probably better in 
this context.

If we modify my paragraph to say "... infer personal information...", 
would that fix it? Or do you think that some other instance of 
"information" is the problem?

Also, should we note that highly idiosyncratic Language Preference Lists 
(to use the 4647 term) might act as a signature for the user?

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:14:19 +0100

Addison Phillips wrote:

> information.

I think it's a "privacy" issue.  If folks are aware of it they can
solve it (e.g. modify their Accept list from time to time), if they
are not aware of it it can be bad.  All we can do is pointing it
out as clearly as possible.

> should we note that highly idiosyncratic Language Preference Lists

Yes.  I'd prefer to use "privacy" as keyword instead of "signature",
but maybe that's only a matter of taste.

Frank

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:48:01 +0900

>> One's language preference in a request header is hardly "private"

Privacy is a highly personal issue. Some people keep some aspects
of their identity highly secret, whereas others freely tell everybody
about the same aspects of their identity. Examples are easy to find,
including for language preferences.

>but maybe that's only a matter of taste.

I agree it is about "privacy". "privacy" is about data about yourself
that may be revealed, when and where you don't expect it. It raises
the right flags in readers, such as the fact that in the extreme, this
can lead to personal identification, or (I seriously doubt this can
happen for language preferences only) identity theft.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]     

07 10:59:17 +0900
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:48:01 +0900
To: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Security and nationality
Cc: 

>> One's language preference in a request header is hardly "private"

Privacy is a highly personal issue. Some people keep some aspects
of their identity highly secret, whereas others freely tell everybody
about the same aspects of their identity. Examples are easy to find,
including for language preferences.

>but maybe that's only a matter of taste.

I agree it is about "privacy". "privacy" is about data about yourself
that may be revealed, when and where you don't expect it. It raises
the right flags in readers, such as the fact that in the extreme, this
can lead to personal identification, or (I seriously doubt this can
happen for language preferences only) identity theft.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:53:53 -0800

I wrote the following *before* responding to Randy's note, but sent it 
after I read Randy's. I forward this just because I think it presents 
things clearly.

~Addison

============

I think you guys are parsing my words too closely, since I didn't 
suggest using the word signature. I agree that the issue is "privacy".

I used the word "signature" in reference to the fact that an unusual 
combination of language ranges might be very rare---even unique. For 
example, at least one of my browsers emits an Accept-Language header 
that is probably unique.

I think there are two cases for language tags to present security or 
privacy risks. We probably should deal with both:

1. The privacy issue could affect language tags when they are applied to 
documents, since they might identify texts (and thus authors) that are 
"offensive" or which are being suppressed or tracked... or even provide 
a filter leading to such discrimination. I note that almost the first 
step in providing for Internet search is language identification.

2. The privacy issue we document, though, really has to do with language 
*ranges* and their combinations and thus should belong in 4647. Unlike 
with documents that you author (which you can protect in various ways), 
ranges are usually emitted when requesting content, which, in turn, may 
reside on remote systems.

Actually, we do mention it in 4647:

   In addition, unique or highly unusual language ranges or combinations 
of language ranges might be used to track a specific individual's 
activities.

I think these are separate and can be identified separately.

Aside from that, I think that making the text far more scary is 
counter-productive.