- From: Brian May via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 21:15:49 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
I agree with @npdoty and strongly favor having the charter only note that the intent is for features to be privacy preserving and that they provide appropriate privacy guarantees, as I suggest [here](https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/pull/20#issuecomment-1108839355). We are most certainly going to want to identify and explore privacy threats, but I think that is appropriately done in the context of use-cases or proposals or documents dedicated to the subject, not the charter. With respect to the more general question about defining privacy which prompted this issue, I suspect that will be a very contentious endeavor, because whether or not something is private tends to be very subjective and context specific. On the other hand, the notion of privacy seems rooted in in the sharing of information which is an objective function, so perhaps we would do better to focus on information flows and providing means of classifying and controlling them, rather than attempting to discern which of them is privacy invasive. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bmayd Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/6#issuecomment-1109048218 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 25 April 2022 21:15:50 UTC