shibboleth-dev - Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question

From: "Tom Scavo" <>
To:
Subject: Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:16:35 -0500
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dVSO9GLXQ+gupPPVjGMpDSEuHOdZXHM7HJIK1+VQeydrjWCMQLyo5LX5fTn6R4IataFAYlAHhYydVyP2D0AI+MKRjTmFtaDVVPboIAHvIUcaMRpX8h+wRqKtQOwYRCy/ZW+hG6QtNLCqLBaYqQQ/5xuxhc886kpyXUjZIbI3OYU=

On 11/28/06, Nathan Dors
<>
wrote:

In a medium-large community like UWash, some users may want these
controls, others will be annoyed by the extra step. Maybe the
right direction therefore involves some amount of user preference?

If that's a concern, how about once per SP, after which a user ARP is
stored at the IdP. Then Autograph can be used to control the user
ARPs for those that are interested.

This doesn't have to be a "get in my face every time I try to access a
service" feature. There's are lots of things that can be done to
appease the power user, but I think occasional users will appreciate
this step. It gives them control and builds confidence.

Tom

ProtectNetwork privacy controls, Tom Scavo, 11/28/2006
- Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls, RL 'Bob' Morgan, 11/28/2006
  - Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question, Nathan Dors, 11/28/2006
    - Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question, Tom Scavo, 11/28/2006
      - NotOnOrAfter property of SAML, Kang Tang, 11/30/2006
        
        Re: NotOnOrAfter property of SAML, Tom Scavo, 11/30/2006
    - Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question, Thomas Lenggenhager, 11/30/2006
  - Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls, Thomas Lenggenhager, 11/30/2006

List archive

Re: ProtectNetwork privacy controls--rhetorical question