Re: [patwg-charter] Charter scope and guaranteeing availability of input data (#16)

@ekr 

> I also don't understand the proposal here, so perhaps it could be provided as a PR?

I would be happy to make a PR if there is an acceptance of the principle beforehand.

> What privacy mechanisms browsers might adopt that would impact SWAN is a question for other WGs, such as PrivacyCG.

This dual group approach is the classic W3C browser vendor playbook. We’ll have a group over there that is going to remove or alter something that impacts many web participants. Then we’ll create another group over here which is going to handle the solutions to the problems created by the other group. We’ll then bat participants between them. These items are related and would be sensibly addressed together before advancing PAT WG.

> I take the topic of this group to be to design technical mechanisms that improve advertising but do not involve the kinds of tracking mechanisms now in use.

You imply SWAN.community utilises tracking mechanisms that are now in use. Correct? Or a misunderstanding on my part?

For the avoid of doubt SWAN.community uses laws, economics, and engineering to significantly increase privacy control and transparency, and identify and eliminate bad actors. Current mechanisms have no engineering to recognise lawful data sharing, do not incentivise good behaviour via economics, nor do they utilise contract law to provide the user visibility of B2B supply chains. SWAN.community is utterly different to today.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jwrosewell
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/16#issuecomment-1088538654 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 10:33:56 UTC