Re: [patwg-charter] Ben Savage: Need to define Privacy (#6)

>> None of it [the information provided to TAG and AC] features either
>> reasoning or research that supports your claims
> 
> Suffix the sentence with “that Robin is prepared to acknowledge”.
> Others have engaged with the substance, and many agree with it.

I note that once again these people who have "engaged with the substance" and "many agree with it" are an anonymous group.

> As one example of research related to the need for W3C to upgrade 
> antitrust provision <https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/88> 
> (which is member only visible) here is a list of the citations provided.

Let's roll back the discussion here:

1. You repeat (again) your claim that the S&P questionnaire is anti-competitive: "is anti competitive in a similar way to the S&P questionnaire."
1. I simply point out that you have yet to back those accusations: "I have yet to see any argument or evidence to support your repeated accusations against the questionnaire."
1. You claim that that information exists and even that I have seen it: "Security and Privacy Questionnaire. Information has been provided to TAG and AC which you have had the opportunity to see."
1. I point out, quite simply, that none of what you have provided supports your claims: "None of it features either reasoning or research that supports your claims."

And in response to this you provide… a completely unrelated list of documents about general-purpose antitrust compliance.

You're trying to frame this as something that somehow I personally am being difficult about, that I am not "prepared to acknowledge" your material. But… you literally just produced a list of completely unrelated documents and changed the topic.

> Re: Privacy Taskforce
> 
>   * Browser vendors: 4
>   * Large publishers: 2
>   * Privacy advocates: 3
>   * Others: 1
>   * Law makers: 0
>   * Lawyers: 0
>   * Small publishers: 0
>   * Advertisers: 0
>   * AdTech: 0
>   * Total members: 10

I'm not even going to bother engaging here, but that categorisation/count is wildly inaccurate.

> Re: Standards and Quasi-Laws
> 
> When I use the term “quasi-law” I’m not referring to technical standards 
> for interoperability.

Interoperability isn't just bit for bit within one standard. Those of us who buy and sell ads on the Internet need to coordinate any number of technologies in order to succeed. Ensuring that the stack operates according to coherent rules is key to ensuring successful interoperation.

In fact, that's the situation we have with the legacy system. It has rules like:

* Third parties MUST be able to recognise people across contexts.
* Third parties MUST be allowed to inject arbitrary code into first parties.
* Browsers MUST NOT enforce purpose limitations.
* …

These rules are what coordinate the many complex pieces in play in legacy advertising. The second you start to change these rules, as we have seen very clearly over the past years, things stop working seamlessly together. These rules also have consequences (supply chains cannot be trusted, fraud, malvertising, etc.).

You're trying to draw a line such that rules you don't like are called "quasi-laws" but rules you like (eg. #16 that states that personal data MUST be made freely available) are somehow magically exempt from this classification.

We pick rules because, again, that's what standards are. We pick them explicitly so that they can be reviewed, not by pretending that they aren't rules.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by darobin
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/6#issuecomment-1088914831 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 15:55:21 UTC