[WG-InfoSharing] Preferences

Info@SS info at smartspecies.com
Thu Jun 27 22:07:32 UTC 2019


I would agree on preferences not being strong enough for uses like we want to get too, but, I see them as a great stepping stone to that. 

My thinking with the preference receipt.  In terms of traditional thinking - us versus supplier, that the entity system provides the receipt, the individual aggregates them, and since its a standard, all systems produce compatible preference receipts.   

Then, the individual could use the intelligence of their own preferences to stipulate, perhaps even using a consent receipt as a verified claim.  The idea(ology) being that the attention of the individual and their preferences for its use are the most valuable commodity - not their data. 

Preferences come out of identity systems - stipulations into identity systems - with this approach, perhaps the user submitted terms can be upgraded to the generated meta data of preference being used to generate terms- with a consent claim.  (Or something along these lines)  

- Mark

> On 27 Jun 2019, at 21:55, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> i agree with you on preferences. I use the word stipulation in my writings.
> Peace ..tom
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:57 PM James Aschberger <james at onethingless.com <mailto:james at onethingless.com>> wrote:
> I consider preferences not to be strong enough. Stating a preference is – in my understanding – not binding for the party hearing the preference. I might state my preference to be upgraded to First Class to my airline of choice, but it does not mean anything to them. 
> 
>  
> 
> Apple discontinued in Safari the "Do-Not-Track" signal option because it turned out to be useless as the signaled preference was not respected by most companies in the digital ecosystem (https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/06/apple-removes-safari-do-not-track-option/ <https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/06/apple-removes-safari-do-not-track-option/>). 
> 
>  
> 
> Another angle to look at this: if preferences were valuable to companies, why don't they provide their customers with clear and easy options to state their preferences regarding direct marketing, tracking, retargeting or sharing personal data with third parties? My working assumption: being able to claim not to know the preferences is a much better position for a company than learning that 90% of customers would prefer not to be tracked and having the choice of not tracking customers (= putting the company at a disadvantage in today's marketing/tech ecosystem), or continuing to track and essentially signaling customer that they disregard the preferences.
> 
>  
> 
> To be clear – I'm not opposed to Mark's suggestion of discussing the possibility of a "preference receipt", provided that we would still have a "consent receipt" in place.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: WG-InfoSharing <wg-infosharing-bounces at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:wg-infosharing-bounces at kantarainitiative.org>> on behalf of Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me <mailto:jim at digi.me>>
> Date: Thursday, 27 June 2019 at 21:36
> To: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com <mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Information Sharing Work Group <wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>>
> Subject: Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Preferences
> 
>  
> 
> Tom,
> 
>  
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> Peace ..tom
> 
>  
> 
> 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"
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Mark  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org>
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing <https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing>
>  
> 
> Disclaimer
> 
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised 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.
> 
> .
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20190627/b38192f1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list