jim at digi.me
Thu Jun 27 19:35:59 UTC 2019
I would think about this as request response, one wants the other supplies in a two party relationship, so supplier is better than vendor
As for the rest I’ll reserve judgement.
On Jun 27, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com<mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
Something got off on the wrong foot here based on the response to mark's proposal.
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 it.)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:34:24 +0100
From: "Mark @ OC" <mark at openconsent.com<mailto:mark at openconsent.com>>
To: "Mark @ OC" <mark at openconsent.com<mailto:mark at openconsent.com>>
Cc: lisa at dialplus.net<mailto:lisa at dialplus.net>, "wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>"
<wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>>
Subject: Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Reminder: tomorrow's call
Message-ID: <EBEB863E-06B5-48A5-AC17-6072F32C5304 at openconsent.com<mailto: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.
WG-InfoSharing mailing list
WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org>
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WG-InfoSharing