[Openid-specs-heart] An approach to data portability for the RO's policies

Wed Aug 31 18:12:43 UTC 2016

Adrian,

I think what Aaron is pointing out is that your first bullet is perfectly
legitimate for a organization like HEART. Your second bullet is a
declaration of a specific 'policy', and HEART can't declare policy. HEART
can make it more easy to do some policies, but there is no way for any
specification to declare that it shall not be used in a way that is
disagreeable by the writers of that specification.  I agree with your
intent, however it is useless for a specification to say things like this,
and it can be detrimental to try.

John

John Moehrke
Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and
Security
CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy
M +1 920-564-2067
JohnMoehrke at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke
https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Adrian Gropper <agropper at healthurl.com>
wrote:

> Aaron, I don't understand what you are saying, please say more.
>
> Note that I use HEART in the sense that a "profile of UMA" specifies some
> policy and technical restrictions that drive interoperability. For example,
> when our profile says you MUST support dynamic client registration, that's
> both a policy and a technical statement.
>
> What are you trying to achieve?
>
> Adrian
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Aaron Seib <aaron.seib at nate-trust.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure how it limits Alice’s ability to specify any AS for a HEART
>> resource at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no forcing function that requires and RS to be able to use her
>> AS is the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Technology alone does not solve that problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Seib, CEO
>>
>> @CaptBlueButton
>>
>>  (o) 301-540-2311
>>
>> (m) 301-326-6843
>>
>> <http://nate-trust.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bou
>> nces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Adrian Gropper
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:09 AM
>> *To:* Eve Maler
>> *Cc:* HEART List
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-heart] An approach to data portability for
>> the RO's policies
>>
>>
>>
>> Are we all in wild agreement here that a policy-sharing API is nice to
>> have but:
>>
>>    - optional, a feature to be standardized in some future version of
>>    UMA, and
>>    - not to be used to limit Alice's ability to specify any AS for a
>>    HEART resource?
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler at forgerock.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Another use case for a policy sharing API: how a resource owner's new AS
>> can *import* polices held by a previous non-UMA-enabled service.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging
>> Technology
>> Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
>> *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to
>> <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, John Moehrke <johnmoehrke at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> HI All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Policy portability is the scope that the FHIR Consent is focused on. So
>> this use-case is one for which HEART has an interest in FHIR Consent. This
>> not the only encoding of policy, but might be better to focus on
>> enforcement, while pointing at FHIR Consent for portability.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> John Moehrke
>> Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy,
>> and Security
>> CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy
>> M +1 920-564-2067
>> JohnMoehrke at gmail.com
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke
>> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Nancy Lush <nlush at lgisoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew and Eve,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am with you.  Policy portability is a topic that has surfaced as we
>> consider use cases for HEART implementation.  Thanks for sharing this, Eve.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do think we should define a continuum of what can be achieved ‘Now’,
>> what ‘Not Yet’ and what is in the future.  We need to be able to talk about
>> the ‘not yet’ and ‘future’ solutions without getting bogged down. There are
>> so many benefits to the most basic features that we should try to nail
>> those as a top priority.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Nancy
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bou
>> nces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Hughes
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:50 AM
>> *To:* Eve Maler <eve.maler at forgerock.com>
>> *Cc:* openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-heart] An approach to data portability for
>> the RO's policies
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Eve - please don't be discouraged.
>>
>>
>>
>> Policy portability is important for many reasons, not least to prevent
>> lock-in to a specific technology or UMA component provider - I hope others
>> on the list chime in to debate the proposal and understand the implications
>> for the full range of use cases that the group is studying.
>>
>>
>>
>> andrew.
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
>> Independent Consultant
>> *In Turn Information Management Consulting*
>>
>> o  +1 650.209.7542
>> m +1 250.888.9474
>> 1249 Palmer Road,
>> Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
>> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
>> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
>> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler at forgerock.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> An UMA RS does not understand, nor have to understand, policy; no entity
>> needs to understand policy in order to get UMA benefits. An RS only has to
>> understand how to interact with the UMA protection API and with UMA
>> clients. That is still true, even if other ecosystem players (AS's today,
>> maybe other peripheral players tomorrow) add value through policy
>> manipulation, at an API I've just sketched that isn't even standardized
>> today and could be complex and multi-natured. I have no idea how you
>> imagine such an API destroying UMA's salutary properties given that *it's
>> not even part of UMA and we can't prevent anyone from coming up with it and
>> UMA-protecting it anyway*.
>>
>>
>>
>> You know what, never mind. Sorry I tried to explain how policy could be
>> portable.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging
>> Technology
>> Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
>> *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to
>> <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Adrian Gropper <agropper at healthurl.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Debbie,
>>
>> My stance is simply patient-centered. There's nothing patient-centered
>> about not giving the patient a choice of _one thing_, anything, that they
>> can specify when an RS claims HEART compliance.
>>
>>    - Can the patient specify a notification email address when a new
>>    Client is registered?
>>    - Can she specify a notification when a new RqP seeks access?
>>    - Can she register another RS to use the same AS that she is being
>>    forced to use?
>>    - Does HEART offer a solution to Alice's multiple portals problem?
>>    - What does HEART mean if Alice can't specify the AS?
>>
>> I think you may be confusing the UI issue with how UMA works. I have no
>> problem with providing a UI for policies at the AS as long as we're clear
>> that Alice must be able to specify the AS. That would solve the problem you
>> seem to be trying to solve because the RS would be able to "bolt on" a UI
>> to capture Alice's policy and then send that policy directly to Alice's AS
>> using OAuth. In that instance, the thing you're calling a "privacy manager"
>> is not an AS in the HEART sense although it can have UMA functionality in
>> cases where Alice does not have an AS of her own choice.
>>
>> Let's keep going with this "privacy manager" concept and take it to the
>> next level where the "privacy manager" runs a full UMA AS and Alice tries
>> to register another resource server. Let's assume the "privacy manager AS"
>> is run by the Veterans Health Administration and the new resource server
>> that Alice wants to register holds her social media data and is not HIPAA
>> covered and maybe not even in US jurisdiction. Now, the VA as AS operator
>> is forced to be responsible for issuing access tokens to some RS in some
>> other country that holds personal data about Alice that's not even close to
>> their responsibilities. What's the likelihood of the VA doing that? Is
>> there any amount of XACML that can protect the VA under these
>> circumstances? Will the VA accept logins and credentials from would-be Bob
>> RqPs that come asking for access?
>>
>> Under this "policies on the wire" construct, the VA would have a choice
>> to say to Alice: "You can't register this particular RS here." please use
>> another AS. At that point, Alice has two ASs and the exchange of policies
>> between them via an interface does not help Alice or make HEART work. How
>> does the VA AS work with the other AS?
>>
>> So, to put this in terms that "privacy manager' vendors (and RS
>> customers) can understand, they can go into the UMA Authorization Business
>> and we hope they do. Their AS policy interface can be tightly coupled to a
>> particular RS in order to provide some usability benefits because the
>> policy UI is presented to the patient in the context of the RS. That is a
>> real value add. Michael Chen and I implemented this feature in the current
>> HIE of One demo between Alice's HIE of One AS and Alice's pNOSH PHR because
>> it presents Alice's UI in the PHR context so she can see what information
>> would be released as she makes her elections. However, this does not avoid
>> the RS offering Alice the choice of an AS that she specifies. The
>> HEART-compliant "privacy manager" will need to honor the AS whether it's
>> specified by Alice or built and run by the privacy manager vendor and their
>> customer.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Debbie Bucci <debbucci at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see it that way.  Your stance seems to be all or nothing.   How
>> can you encourage an ecosytem to grow by being so rigid?
>>
>> Alice would not be forced to share anything.   I see it more of enabling
>> the bolt on of privacy managers - potentially minimizing the UI placed on
>> RS   and easing the burden of data entry for the patient.  There are policy
>> requirement outside the UMA protocol that will need to be satisfied (thank
>> you Luis for that clarification/thought).
>>
>> Alice can build/run AND outsource.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian Gropper MD
>>
>> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
>> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
>> DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
>> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
>> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
>> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian Gropper MD
>>
>> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
>> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
>> DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adrian Gropper MD
>
> PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
> HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
> DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20160831/fd1f3fb2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3204 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20160831/fd1f3fb2/attachment.jpg>