thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Thu Jun 27 19:12:23 UTC 2019
Something got off on the wrong foot here based on the response to mark's
Preferences from the user are valuable. There is a specific use of
preferences where the user supplies consent, but that is not the majority
of use cases.
As i recall Mary had "user submitted terms" which has been batted around
and some of which as been taken up by the IEEE. But the real point is that
user preference should be asserted at the beginning, sort-of a DNT (Do not
track) on steroids. Consent to share information comes later, based on web
site preferences and requirements. (These are distinguished in the
California law but not afaict in the GDPR.) I really don't see that
preferences must include situational decisions in the way that consent
does. In fact if the user preference is DNT, they may waive that in a
subsequent consent document specific to the vendor or the present
transaction. (I do agree that it would be nice to have a better word than
vendor, but i don't know what it might be. Organization just doesn't cut
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:34:24 +0100
From: "Mark @ OC" <mark at openconsent.com>
To: "Mark @ OC" <mark at openconsent.com>
Cc: lisa at dialplus.net, "wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org"
<wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>
Subject: Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Reminder: tomorrow's call
Message-ID: <EBEB863E-06B5-48A5-AC17-6072F32C5304 at openconsent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I would like to be the first to propose that this working group consider a
preference receipt as a chartered, roadmap activity. From all of the
feedback, the technical use cases and the considerable social and
political issues, I think something like a preference receipt would be the
work item that might really take what many people are looking for from a
receipt, to that next level of human to tech relationship management.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WG-InfoSharing