- From: Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:21:52 +0100
- To: Iain Henderson <iain@jlinc.com>
- Cc: Data Privacy Vocabularies and Controls Community Group <public-dpvcg@w3.org>, Georg Philip Krog <georg@signatu.com>
Hi. To summarise, some of these 'Permission' instances will be 'Consent'? As in 'Consent' is a special form of 'Permission'? IF yes, then I think we are in agreement. Though the difference between Permission and Consent is important, because for Consent the 'simple' toggle/checkbox may not be sufficient - and why we need to distinguish the concepts. I note that linguistically, it would be better to have 'Agreement' as the broader concept for 'Permission' as it would cover consent and contracts. And then, it would indicate to choose the most appropriate form of 'agreement' from the taxonomy - whether it be t&c, permission, or consent. Regards, Harsh On 05/09/2023 15:11, Iain Henderson wrote: > My take would be that ‘Permission’ is a good word that sits on the side > of the individual, can easily be explained; and amounts to a yes/ no > flag at a point in time. Individuals do not have the time nor the > inclination to understand the various nuances beyond that. > > Then, on the organisational side, there should be a mapping between each > data related permission granted or withdrawn by an individual and one of > the GDPR/ DPV legal bases for data processing. > > That model then allows us to build out a large and extensible list of > permissions that can be standardised over time (some already are); so > that when an individual says ‘I give you permission to do XXX with YYY > data’ then both parties can be referring to the same thing. That allows > us to move beyond each and every organisation having a different way to > say ‘would you like to subscribe to our newsletter’ for example. > > You can see a start point for that approach to using Permissions at the > MyData Dictionary, which is the start of a core, open personal data > model as seen from the individual perspective. > > Implementation example attached with some standardisable permissions. > > MyData Dictionary <https://dictionary.mydata.org/> > dictionary.mydata.org <https://dictionary.mydata.org/> > <https://dictionary.mydata.org/> > > <https://dictionary.mydata.org/> > > > MyData Dictionary <https://dictionary.mydata.org/perms/> > dictionary.mydata.org <https://dictionary.mydata.org/perms/> > <https://dictionary.mydata.org/perms/> > > <https://dictionary.mydata.org/perms/> > > > Happy to discuss further if useful. > > Cheers > > Iain > > Screenshot 2023-09-05 at 15.10.14.png > > >> On 4 Sep 2023, at 18:41, Harshvardhan J. Pandit <me@harshp.com> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> Currently we have no way to specify "permission" of the data subject >> without the legal basis being consent - as required by the PSD3 >> use-case below. >> >> --- >> >> https://edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/press-releases/2023/financial-and-payment-services-use-personal-data-should-remain-proportionate-and-fair_en >> >> "The EDPS welcomes the efforts made to ensure the Proposals’ >> consistency with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Both >> Proposals should specify that the granting of ‘permissions’ to access >> financial data does not equate to giving consent under the GDPR. >> Likewise, all processing of personal data following a request to >> access an individual’s financial data must have an appropriate legal >> basis under the GDPR." >> >> --- >> >> My proposal is as follows: >> >> >> - `Consent`: is already a legal basis, and is the individual's >> permission (based on validity criteria e.g. information in notice) >> - `Permission`: will be added as a legal basis (exact term TBD), and >> is an affirmative action in order to initiate or continue a process; >> this makes consent a type of permission with specific additional >> requirements >> >> - `ObtainPermission`: an organisational measure that asks for >> permission in order to start or continue a process >> - `AddressObjection`: an organisational measure that addresses an >> objection before starting or while continuing a process >> >> - `ProvideOptIn`: an organisational measure that provides the ability >> to someone else to initiate the process i.e. to opt into the process >> - `ProvideOptOut`: an organisational measure that provides the ability >> to someone else to stop the process i.e. to opt out of the process >> >> --- >> >> Confusion questions: >> >> 1) Permission (legal basis) vs Obtaining Permission (TOMs) - a legal >> basis is a process providing a justification for enabling something >> which is regulated or required by law, and where the law determines >> where it can be used and its validity. An Organisational Measure is >> determined by the Organisation in terms of how and where it is used. >> Therefore, if the permission is legally required, then it is a legal >> basis, and if it is the organisation's decision - then it is a TOMs. >> We have to use different terms - i.e. "Obtaining Permission" for one >> of these (I chose TOMs) - to distinguish the concepts. >> >> 2) Permission vs Consent: Permission can be by the data subject or >> another entity, and can be for personal data or non-personal data. >> Permission for personal data does not necessarily mean consent e.g. in >> the above statement by EDPS, it is clearly stated thus. Consent is a >> type of Permission however - "prior permission" to be more specific. >> But we should not get into the pedantic modelling of this within DPV. >> What matters is that users can issue permissions without it being >> 'consent' (under GDPR). >> >> 3) Obtaining Permission vs Providing Opt-in: These two reflect two >> different perspectives with the same end result of the (e.g.) user >> deciding when to start a process. Permission is asking the user if >> they want to permit. Opt-in is giving the ability for the user to >> decide - whenever they want to - whether they want to start a process. >> A checkbox or dialog asking if it is okay to do something is obtaining >> a permission rather than an opt-in. A dialog or checkbox asking if you >> would like to use the beta version is an opt-in rather than a >> permission. So the phrasing and intent matters in choosing the correct >> term. >> >> These concepts have obvious overlaps, but my intent here is to point >> out that if defined in the manner above - they have their distinctions >> and uses from being distinguished. Their common use has led to >> confusion about their usage, which is definitely not helped with >> idiotic uses such as "opt-in consent" or its evil counterpart - >> "opt-out consent". For DPV, these concepts should be defined precisely >> as their legal meaning rather than the technical haphazard >> interpretations. In the end, no harms will come to pass if someone >> uses "Obtaining Permission" instead of "Providing Opt-in", but having >> the ability to accurately represent the term of choice would certainly >> help. >> >> --- >> >> NOTE1: No DPVCG meeting this THU SEP-07. Next meeting is on THU SEP-14. >> NOTE2: There are two major proposals which will be implemented on >> SEP-30. Please see >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpvcg/2023Aug/0015.html >> >> Regards, >> -- >> --- >> Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D >> Assistant Professor >> ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University >> https://harshp.com/ >> > -- --- Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D Assistant Professor ADAPT Centre, Dublin City University https://harshp.com/
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2023 14:22:02 UTC