[WG-InfoSharing] Fwd: Preferences

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Sun Jun 30 19:10:22 UTC 2019


Here's a (hopefull) positive approach we could try.

No cookies are enabled from any site without a web manifest and a strong
verified web site identity including logos and contact (etc.) info.
I could propose that to blink, but i would need some ideas about what
belongs in a web site manifest.

Peace ..tom


On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:19 AM Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:

> with transparency and accountability.
>
> Nat Sakimura
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> https://nat.sakimura.org
> 2019年6月29日 12:06 -0400、Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>のメール:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190630/ab8a30a8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list