[WG-InfoSharing] Fwd: Preferences

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Sat Jun 29 16:05:52 UTC 2019


The most interesting part of your message is "replace the cookie". Perhaps
our challenges are not punishment for malfeasance, but rather enabling
advertising and tracking in a sustainable way.

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 6:33 AM Info at SS <info at smartspecies.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> I think the interchange field and specification is likely the most
> important thing to concentrate on next - I was thinking this would be a the
> format the receiving format and rules for taking privacy agreements or
> stipulations.  Effectively enabling people to link preferences and personal
> data.
>
> To do things like replace the cookie.
>
> On 28 Jun 2019, at 18:41, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190629/8c2ffe80/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list