[Openid-specs-heart] An approach to data portability for the RO's policies
Justin Richer
jricher at mit.edu
Thu Sep 1 06:45:41 UTC 2016
The problem is that in the real world, it’s all the little fiddly bits of policy description that make it non-portable across domain boundaries.
It’s not a matter of having a description language or common resource, that’s relatively easy, it’s more a matter of interpreting the semantics of the policy itself in a new environment.
— Justin
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:03 PM, 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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20920-564-2067>
> JohnMoehrke at gmail.com <mailto:JohnMoehrke at gmail.com>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke <https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke>
> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com <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 <mailto: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-bounces at lists.openid.net <mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces 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 <mailto:eve.maler at forgerock.com>>
> Cc: openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20650.209.7542>
> m +1 250.888.9474 <tel:%2B1%20250.888.9474>
> 1249 Palmer Road,
> Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com <mailto:AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com>
> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ <http://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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20425.345.6756> | 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20160901/8f4e8d7b/attachment.html>
More information about the Openid-specs-heart
mailing list