User Consent

From MgmtWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Full Title or Meme

User Consent is the informed Grant by the user to information or resources owned or controlled by the User.

Context

Problem

User consent is discussed in the GDPR for transfers of User Information between two Data Controllers on the internet. It is not clear if the GDPR or other regulations apply to a site that collects user data for its own purposes and does not further process or share that User Information. Nor is any temporal relationship between User Consent acts described. So it is not clear if a new User Consent arrives, what action should be taken vis a vis any prior consents. If older consents are not invalidated, it is unclear how to evaluate conflict between the different consents.

Solution

In this wiki it is assumed that there can exist only one active User Consent among three parties on the internet, the Subject (aka User) the Identifier or Attribute Provider and the Relying Party. It is unclear if User Consent has any specific meaning between the Subject and the Identifier or Attribute Provider; that is left for further developments. In other words, if the user updates consent - all prior consents are unavailable for new actions.

Consent Page

In order for the user to grant consent, a consent page must be provided by the Identifier or Attribute Provider.

  • A consent page normally renders the display name of the current user, the display name of the Relying Party (aka client) requesting access, the logo of the client, a link for more information about the client, and the list of resources the client is requesting access to. It’s also common to allow the user to indicate that their consent should be “remembered” so they are not prompted again in the future for the same client.
  • Once the user has provided consent, the consent page must inform Identifier or Attribute Provider of the consent, and then the browser must be redirected back to allow the user to continue where they left off.
  • The user's choice may be stored for later use by the same Web Site if the user opts into that option. If the user does not opt in, the choice as to scopes, date and destination MUST not be saved.

Back at the Relying Party

The User Consent provided might not align exactly with what the RP requested. In that case the RP may accept the consent granted, or it may need to go back to the user for additional Attributes or some Validation of the Attributes. It is important at this point to know if the session with the IAP is still valid, or if a new session would be initiated. The User Experience should be maximized whichever path is chosen.

Consent Taxonomy

The user must be shown a list of categories of User Private Information we start with a list of OpenID Connect Scopes and move on from there. Note that if Recovery or Notification is required, then either phone or email must be included; (theoretically address would work, but practically it is not included.)

Name OIDC Priv Risk Notes
openid yes 0 requests access to the user_id (sub) Claim which is here assumed to be pair-wise unique for the privacy score.
profile yes 4 requests that access to the End-User’s profile Claims excluding the address and email Claims.
email yes 4 requests that access to the email and verified Claims
Email validated - 0 more significant for AuthN - needed if noticed desired
address yes 4 requests access to address Claim
addr validated - 0 for example by AAMVA
phone - 4 requests that access to the phone_number Claim (assumed SMS capable)
phone validated - 0 more significant for AuthN - needed if noticed desired
user device location - 4 request for location of device used for this interaction (note that IP addresses leak a fairly good approximation of this)

References

See the FHIR section on security and privacy for the HL7 take on privacy consent.