- From: James Aylett via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 19:19:30 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
@darobin while that might (subject to suitable review) be sufficient for people who understand how various risks are being mitigated by the design, I think there's an aspect of @palenica's point which is more about people who won't... who will they consider trusted (whether operating a TEE or relying exclusively on protocol guarantees built in to use of MPC)? Although eventually this reaches beyond the responsibility of this CG or even W3C, our architecture might be usefully influenced if there's any research (including if we could provoke someone to do new studies) on what trusted could look like. We don't want to design and deploy something that in some parts of the world spawns a successful grassroots campaign for everyone to opt out -- if a different approach could achieve a more accepted outcome. (Also the annoying pedant in me wants to point out that adequacy isn't permanent, and that it is part of an increasing number of non-European laws which means it can't be guaranteed to be either reflexive or transient. I'll try to keep the pedant under control by point out that most of these countries are very likely to confer adequacy on the EU.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by jaylett-annalect Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/7#issuecomment-1037408440 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 12 February 2022 19:19:32 UTC