- From: Alex via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:29:15 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
I have a few observations and bucket them into general, standards, legal concepts, and strategy. **General** - There are a lot of claims above about the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive that read as very binary - If I've learned anything working with lawyers it is there is very little that is as binary as the conversation above implies - Can we please acknowledge that data protective/privacy-seeking ads APIs and jurisdictional legal requirements around notice and choice are not mutually exclusive? We don't have to decide or come to consensus that we have to go all in on one or the other. **Standards** - Each must have some sort of scope - The scope the current proposals and the PATCG is not to build a new notice and choice mechanism... - Though as many have stated, the final standards we’re should seek to accommodate user understanding and control to the best of our abilities and there are a number of ways to skin that cat) - If someone is looking to build (or iterate) one of those notice and choice standards there are places to do so and importantly, still feel aligned with the work inside PATCG's scope - It’s ok and quite healthy for a standards discussion focused on data protection and privacy in the ads space to try and test new means of achieving the spirit of digital data protection and privacy in ads (doing so is not illegal prima facie) - Standards that seek to reduce the spray of global, non purpose limited identifiers are being welcomed by many regulators including ones in the UK **Legal Concepts** - Laws evolve - Legal interpretations are very often all over the map - Each regulatory enforcement evolves those legal interpretations that are still all over the map even if a little less so with the text and nature of each new enforcement - We are very unlikely to achieve a harmony in legal interpretations in this forum and with this group makeup - The direction of lawmaking around privacy, data protection and advertising is currently very dynamic and there’s no certainty any one law or concept today is going to be the same next year or the year after that **Strategy** - Using today's laws to maintain status quo is arguably a really poor strategy as tomorrow's laws may look a lot different and be less agreeable to the status quo ([see one of many recent examples](https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-schakowsky-booker-introduce-bill-ban-surveillance-advertising)) - It is wise to open our eyes to the direction of laws and regulatory discourse around our subject area of ads, privacy and data protection - Much of the tenor of that lawmaking discourse is a reaction to the pervasiveness of global, non-purpose limited IDs sprayed all over the place - If this CG is able to chart a path for achieving purpose limited processing it will be doing so against a backdrop of lawmaking motion that is likely to view our achievement as an advancement -- GitHub Notification of comment by alextcone Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/5#issuecomment-1034987044 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2022 14:29:17 UTC