Re: [meetings] Agenda Request - Review Working Group Charter Changes (#52)

Thanks for being brief and succinct @jwrosewell.  I will try to do the same in my response.

> Address the flawed [notion of first and third party](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-patcg/2022Jun/0074.html) which the charter draft adopts.

There is no mention of first or third party in the charter (the word "party" is not found), so I am guessing that you refer to this minimal definition of privacy:

> Ways in which new features might enable inappropriate processing include (but are not limited to) enabling of [cross-site or cross context recognition](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/#hl-recognition-cross-site) of users or enabling [same-site or same-context recognition](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/#hl-recognition-same-site) of users across the clearing of state.

This was discussed extensively and I believe that there is consensus for this specific language.  As you observed yourself, this is useful in ensuring that the working group doesn't undertake work outside of an agreed scope.  In this case, it is to ensure that work does not violate some these elementary privacy expectations.  I understand that you disagree with this conclusion, but my understanding is that your position is at odds with established consensus.

(The chairs may correct me on my understanding of consensus, but I believe that both of the above are well-documented.)

> Explicitly reject the position of the 'Privacy Principles' draft [...]

The only reference to [the joint PING/TAG work on privacy principles](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/) is very narrowly targeted and as it relates to the previous point, I think that it is defensible as it is relying on a narrow definition only.  (The charter does not refer to the entirety of the document, nor would it be appropriate to do so until the work achieves broader support.)

> Explore the licensing of input data need to implement a specification under FRAND terms [...]

This point remains very confused for me.  We tried to clarify this on the call, but let me try again.  

The intellectual property rights necessary to implement specifications (i.e., patents) are, by [W3C policy](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/), not FRAND but royalty free.  Nothing changes here, nor should it.

You seem to be referring to rights over access to information that is not rightly yours, nor is it the property of any other actor in this group.  That is, rights over the browsing history of web users.  A working group charter cannot grant any rights over that data.  That's between individual web users and those entities that might receive that data.

There are occasions where private information has been used for research purposes to inform choices made by working groups.  The example given was the use of Chrome data to inform decisions about the Topics proposal.  Meta might provide some information about how people use their advertising platform.  This is very common in standards environments, where data and research is essential for informing choices.  We cannot compel entities to share information with others, because it is rarely possible under the terms by which they obtained the information, especially when some of that information is private.  

Though they might be able to conduct research, they are bound by usage terms and agreements set when the data was collected, as well as the moral obligation to respect the privacy of those who the data relates to.  No doubt their lawyers have ensured that their use of that data is defensible.  No doubt they also take care to ensure that the use of data is appropriate and moral.

In the end, you need to consider contributions that are informed by use of private data no differently from any other contribution made to the group.  Treat claims with appropriate skepticism, ask questions about methodology, try to corroborate results using data you might be able to access, find shortcomings or limitations, offer criticism, and ultimately determine whether the decision it informs suits your needs.  But do not ask that the information be licensed for your use unless you are prepared for the answer to be "no".  Enshrining that request in a charter as a demand or precondition of participation is highly inappropriate.

> Remove "Features that support advertising but provide privacy by means that are primarily non-technical should be proposed elsewhere."

This is a key scoping provision in the charter.  It is in the name of the group even.

If you want to pursue non-technical approaches, I suggest that you seek to form a working group for that purpose.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by martinthomson
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/52#issuecomment-1162467959 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2022 23:46:11 UTC