Re: DPV Concepts for T&C, privacy policies, etc.

Hi Mark, All.
If we're modelling other jurisdictional terms, I would recommend first 
looking into CCPA/CPRA instead given its larger impact and interest in 
the community, or revisiting Convention 108+ to see if DPV can be used 
to 'normalise' its adherents, or more importantly, getting ISO 
standards/concepts aligned with DPV.

On 25/03/2021 21:45, Mark Lizar wrote:
> I would like to introduce :  privacy agreement, which is a legal policy tool for superseding some T&C’s and specifying a high quality consent which could use some discussion.

@mark can you please share some links/references for this (specific) 
term i.e. "privacy agreement" - as it occurs in a legislation or 
document, and where we might find its usage? Or is it the case that you 
are proposing the term to represent the artefact that is "written 
agreement sent to Commision"?  I could not find the terms "privacy 
agreement" in the Quebec/Canada bill you linked to.

If we are to define new concepts, we need to be careful in its 
introspection. Where such 'concepts' are defined within the bounds of a 
particular law, we can point to it (definition in law) to avoid 
ambiguity in our vocabulary. If we define a new concept otherwise 
without any reflection in the real-world, and it turns out there is 
another term that is used instead - this will mean changing the 
vocabulary in the future. E.g. if we add PrivacyAgreement now and later 
that document is called PrivacyAssessmentAgreement instead. Besides, the 
bill is (only) proposed, and if it is to be modelled, I would suggest 
having a separate jurisdictional extension similar to dpv-gdpr until the 
term is 'normalised' enough to be applicable at a global scope.

Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Received on Friday, 26 March 2021 00:08:42 UTC