<div dir="ltr"><div>Justin and I have been discussing the idea of adding another specialty scope, somewhat similar to our existing mechanism for confidentiality/sensitivity scopes and the break-the-glass ("btg") scope, for indicating that the disclosed data should be de-identified.</div><div><br></div><div>The group did discuss this a bit, a long time back, but we put it on the back burner because de-identification can never be "complete" (i.e., you never reach full computational anonymization). But there are transformation processes that do "as good a job as possible", and I believe we can couch the capability in the right terms. As well, when I have talked with people about HEART (a lot of people when I was at the RSA conference, for example!), a demand for this type of feature came up.</div><div><br></div><div>Thoughts?</div><div><br></div><div>====</div><div><br></div><div>In addition, whether we have two (conf/sens and btg) or three (adding de-id) such mechanisms, I think the spec would really benefit from a bit more text explaining the consequences of how they work -- and possibly how they might compare to each other. We've got the bare minimum spec text right now. Currently, things work like this:</div><div><ul><li><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">In all cases: RS has the choice to advertise the capability to handle each scope, in OAuth, by including it in developer documentation, and in UMA, by registering the scope as part of a registered resource. (This means it's not possible for an AS to be caught unawares offering a scope that an RS can't handle.)</span></li></ul><ul><li>Conf/sens scopes: If the scope is MISSING from a client-presented access token, the RS SHOULD filter out the corresponding conf/sens data.<br><br>Implications that we don't describe anywhere yet:<br><br></li><ul><li>The SHOULD is a very strong word in spec writing, but we don't say what the rationales should be for <i>not</i> being able to filter out the data as "promised".<br><br></li><li>Given that <i>absence</i> of the scope is a signal to filter (this is because the scope names are based on the HL7 codes and the way the "logic direction" runs), "default policies" or similar in the patient's UX that automatically set up filtering would be a good idea.</li></ul></ul><ul><li>btg: If the scope is PRESENT in a client-presented access token, then the RS MUST leave a human-readable audit trail of access given on that basis.<br><br>Implications that we don't describe anywhere yet:<br><br></li><ul><li>Pre-set policies would be a big benefit here given that we say "The resource is intended to be accessed when the resource owner is unavailable", a UX consideration but an important one.<br><br></li><li>It's likely that setting up some sort of trust framework or similar will be needed for determining which claims would suffice for letting (say) an emergency responder get access when the resource owner is unavailable.</li></ul></ul></div><div>I suspect that if we add something like a "de-identify" scope, its logic would work OPPOSITE to the conf/sens scopes because we could name it in a more obvious fashion. And so if it were PRESENT in a client-presented access token, that would be the signal for the RS to do the de-identification operation on delivered content.</div><div><br></div><div>(Refer to <a href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=html/ascii&url=https://bitbucket.org/openid/heart/raw/master/openid-heart-fhir-oauth2.xml">this spec</a> for the relevant language.)</div><div><br></div><div>====</div><div><br></div><div>We do have a meeting on Monday, and I apologize for having to miss it -- I'll be in Munich at the EIC conference, presenting HEART status to the OpenID Foundation workshop, for one thing!</div><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="font-family:Times"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><a href="https://www.forgerock.com/" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.forgerock.com/img/ForgeRock_retina_email_bw_logo.png" width="185" height="70" border="0" alt="ForgeRock"></a></td><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;color:rgb(47,52,56);line-height:19.8px"><strong>Eve Maler</strong><br>VP Innovation & Emerging Technology | ForgeRock<br><span style="color:rgb(249,76,35)"><strong>t</strong></span> (425) 345-6756 | <span style="display:inline-block"><span style="color:rgb(249,76,35)"><strong>e</strong></span> <a href="mailto:eve.maler@forgerock.com" style="color:rgb(47,52,56)" target="_blank">eve.maler@forgerock.com</a></span><br><span style="color:rgb(249,76,35)"><strong>twitter</strong></span> xmlgrrl | <span style="display:inline-block"><span style="color:rgb(249,76,35)"><strong>web</strong></span> <a href="https://www.forgerock.com/" style="color:rgb(47,52,56)" target="_blank">www.forgerock.com</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>