[WG-InfoSharing] Fwd: Preferences

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Fri Jun 28 17:41:24 UTC 2019


Forwarding as James is not yet enabled.
And also because i would like to see a standard for formalized user
messages input into the whole interchange.
Peace ..tom


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: James Aschberger <james at onethingless.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Preferences
To: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
Cc: Info at SS <info at smartspecies.com>, wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org <
wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>


Hence I worded it carefully as "could be enhanced" as a formal right for a
consent receipt is not in place. However:



GDPR stipulates that the data controller has to provide a response to a
data subject exercising her/his/their rights: *"The controller should be
obliged to respond to requests from the data subject without undue delay
and at the latest within one month and to give reasons where the controller
does not intend to comply with any such requests."*



So the starting point is actually an acknowledgement of the request…



Cheers,

James





*From: *Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
*Date: *Friday, 28 June 2019 at 18:01
*To: *James Aschberger <james at onethingless.com>
*Cc: *"Info at SS" <info at smartspecies.com>, "
wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org" <wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>
*Subject: *Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Preferences



Right - mostly.

I believe that " asking for a corresponding "consent receipt"  " is just a
preference stipulation, even in the EU.

Peace ..tom





On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:49 AM James Aschberger <james at onethingless.com>
wrote:

I think Mark raises a very interesting perspective with global appeal.



Individuals who are granted rights under GDPR (EU residents regardless of
their citizenship) already can go beyond stipulating preferences. They have
rights that allow them to request companies to implement certain
restrictions (no direct marketing, no profiling etc.), which could be
enhanced by asking for a corresponding "consent receipt" based on Kantara
standard(s).



In other parts of the world where the regulation is not there (yet),
individuals could pursue in a first step the "preference stipulation"
direction. The reaction of a company would be on a voluntary basis at this
point, but based on the same Kantara standard(s).



James



*From: *"Info at SS" <info at smartspecies.com>
*Date: *Friday, 28 June 2019 at 00:08
*To: *Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
*Cc: *James Aschberger <james at onethingless.com>, "
wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org" <wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>
*Subject: *Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Preferences



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>
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/
).



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> on
behalf of Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me>
*Date: *Thursday, 27 June 2019 at 21:36
*To: *Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>
*Cc: *Information Sharing Work Group <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> 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>
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"

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
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/20190628/535a8bb9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list