W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > September 2022

Re: Apple and Google's Mobile Document Request API

From: Kaliya Identity Woman <kaliya@identitywoman.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:36:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CANez3f5edT4MNCwfdRQw9Wm3BZPP3hW37fniGOgs8ug5Vs0nwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Here are the comments that I made to the FTC.

the have commentary open on the rule making until October 21st.
 I suggest that we as a community co-author some comments together.
 Maybe we can have a CCG call about what we should say and get a draft
/some drafts started.
- Kaliya

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 7:36 AM Kaliya Identity Woman <
kaliya@identitywoman.net> wrote:

> Speaking of Policy Makers.
>  I raised my hand to make a public comment at a public forum put on by the
> FTC about/for their  rulemaking process on Commercial Surveillance and
> Data Security
> <https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/commercial_surveillance_public_forum_final_agenda.pdf> (
> link to streaming <https://www.ftc.gov/>).
> I have a 2 min slot in public comment time that starts at 5pm ET and plan
> to raise this set of emerging issues and sharing that they should be taking
> a forward looking stance relative to emerging consumer choice/empowerment
> issues relative to Big Tech.
> I plan to highlight the kind of "choke point" that could emerge re:
> wallets and by extension data knowledge of the two large platforms in
> mobile - that there is an opportunity to get out in front of this
> problem because we see it - that means they could "see it" and help us
> address it.
> - Kaliya
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:05 AM Kalin NICOLOV <kalin.nicolov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Why the surprise though? big tech has always been in the business of
>> skimming the markets at speed and scale. They have always done the 20%
>> work needed to cover the 80% viable markets and shovelled the remaining 80%
>> work over the fence to the 20% public interest groups. Failure is at W3C
>> (and similar) system/governance level, where such behaviour is tolerated
>> and not acted upon? What are the incentives of W3C that allow this tacit
>> accomplice syndrome?
>> As per a popular book (Switch), we can either shape the road or kick the
>> elephant. Shaping the road is a call for more of us talking to policy
>> makers, building bridges with like-minded public technologists (Singapore
>> and Canada come to mind) and making all this good thinking accessible to
>> decision makers and influencers at D7, G20 circles. Before this is waved
>> away with a smile, the contrarian (and right/correct) thinking is dearly
>> lacking in not just the visible part of these circles but the cohorts of
>> staff who build the collateral for their events, discussions and gatherings.
>> Looking at this pure gold thread - it is on a mailing list, attended
>> (mostly) by rebels. Zoom out enough and you will see a mouse screaming at
>> the ocean waves. [if anyone is offended by this observation, assume I speak
>> of myself and move on, I have neither time nor desire to convince you
>> otherwise]. Funding is not where we are strong, and we should not seek to
>> excel at it imho. This is not our game, so a better game need be
>> crafted, in a way.
>> In my view more of these conversations should be surfaced in digestible
>> formats: articles, blog posts, whitepapers, talking points and references.
>> Append to that readiness to talk to public officials or spread the word at
>> events - this is where the power of many (of us) starts making a difference
>> in comparison with the few abusing the system with templated persistence.
>> If we let this continue to unravel exclusively here, we can all spare
>> keyboard strokes and effort, as none of us alone will climb high enough to
>> inflict that needed change in thinking.
>> Take this conversation out in the world. I found inspiration in the
>> effort of Timothy Ruff earlier today:
>> https://rufftimo.medium.com/web3-web5-ssi-3870c298c7b4
>> Cheers,
>> K
>> *From: *Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 14:51
>> *To: *Liam R. E. Quin <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
>> *Cc: *W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: Apple and Google's Mobile Document Request API
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 10:51 PM Liam R. E. Quin <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
>> wrote:
>> > There are a lot of smart people in these larger companies.
>> > They know exactly what they are doing.
>> >
>> > In theory the role of the staff contacts and W3C team is to fight off
>> > such behaviours, but in practice it's rarely possible, even where the
>> > staff contacts have the necessary political insights.
>> For those of you that don't know, Liam was the W3C XML Activity lead
>> for 20 years. He has been central to the XML and SGML Community for
>> over 35 years and has helped Verifiable Credentials get to where it is
>> today. This man has seen some shenanigans over the years. :)
>> Thank you Liam, for lending more credence to this discussion.
>> One of the reasons these large vendors tend to get away with this sort
>> of behaviour is that the W3C Members let them get away with it... and
>> when they don't, the browser vendors just shift the work to the WHAT
>> WG (a largely browser vendor-only "Working Group" external to
>> standards bodies). That's where HTML5 lives today as the browser
>> vendors (arguably) became annoyed that W3C was not providing good
>> stewardship on the HTML standard -- they weren't completely wrong, but
>> this goes to show you what happens when the W3C Membership challenges
>> their authority.
>> As another case-in-point, in the W3C Web Payments work, the Working
>> Group (who were all new to W3C -- it hadn't had a payments activity
>> for over 20 years) voted against the Web Payments Community Group
>> proposal, and in favor of the browser vendor plan, because 1) the
>> browser vendors refused to implement the community group's plan, 2)
>> the W3C Members  (and Staff) panicked because if the browser vendors
>> didn't implement, the WG would be shut down, and 3) wallet selection
>> was promised as an outcome. It could be argued that Google made a
>> concerted effort to open up wallet selection, which was rebuffed by
>> Apple (and Edge, Mozilla, and Samsung). At present, everyone is at a
>> stalemate because the browser vendors probably know that there will be
>> formal objections to the notion of the Web Payments work as a W3C
>> Recommendation (because the "open standard" only supports proprietary
>> wallets at present).
>> There is a recourse -- the W3C Membership could formally object to any
>> work that doesn't support open wallet selection, but then the possible
>> outcomes are at least 1) the work moves to the WHAT WG and W3C
>> Membership has no say wrt. the outcome, or 2) the vendors promise open
>> wallet selection (but never deliver) and the W3C Membership never
>> ratifies the work as a global standard, or 3) the work never starts,
>> ensuring the proprietary wallet solutions remain the only solutions
>> for the foreseeable future.
>> CHAPI was designed to break these logjams by providing an open wallet
>> selection solution that  1) works in all known browsers today, 2)
>> doesn't require browser/OS vendor buy in, and 3) has a path to
>> eventually being built into the browser.
>> Thanks, Liam, for the public confirmation of things some of us have
>> experienced over the past several decades. Again, this sort of
>> behaviour doesn't just happen at W3C, it happens at IETF, ISO, and
>> just about any standards setting body you can think of. There are
>> strong market-driven incentives for large corporations to reduce
>> choice and great pressures on the people working at those
>> organizations to act in the best interest of the people that issue
>> their paycheck (and performance bonuses).
>> -- manu
>> --
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2022 23:36:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 8 September 2022 23:36:51 UTC