- From: Robin Berjon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:28:30 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
@jdelhommeau I think we're entirely agreed. The way I look at it, we design tech that is safe by default, and that can also be turned on & off. In some cases we might need to support opt-in, in others opt-out (eg. objection to processing), for legal reasons (whether those legal reasons help with privacy or not). My assumption in GDPR worlds is that even if we can make the case for a CoC that allows this processing under LI, we'll still have to support objections to processing anyway. @anderagakura Dis-moi si tu trouves des choses intéressantes! Always happy to discuss. @michael-oneill If consent remains the basis, the browser could obtain consent for its own processing but the processing of others could prove a challenge in some cases (see TCF). This is completely a side-track, but note that if the browser obtains consent for its own processing and sharing, that would imply that the browser is a controller. Following that path, you quickly reach the point at which the browser would need a legal basis for instance to provide non-essential cookies. I've long said that this is a plausible legal theory under the GDPR, but I think that a legal requirement to put an ATT-style dialog in browsers would make some waves :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by darobin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/5#issuecomment-1036268010 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 11 February 2022 14:28:32 UTC