Re: [patwg-charter] Align the definition of privacy to laws (#31)

W3C does have a global membership: it is also true that its standards are inapplicable worldwide as they affected by certain countries' state mandated firewalls and controls that override them - so references to laws in those countries or definitions from laws in countries where W3C standards are not routinely applied would likely be less than useful for engineering purposes. Rather than dismissing the prospect of a definition of privacy with reference to a neutral law of another place which can be impartially and externally defined, which might be used as a reference system that can also be adjudicated, what would engineering needs demand from the word "privacy" to make progress? The reference to GDPR is a neutral law that applies to world commerce and is applicable to over 500 million people living in countries to which it applies and countries such as the UK and USA who trade with the EU. Most if not all W3C members' businesses will have to comply with it won't they? (Please can you identify one that does not and why?) It would objectively appear to be a reasonable starting point for a definition that can be used for engineering for W3C members and the world that uses W3C standards wouldn't it? 

To your point about "privacy" being defined nowhere. I agree. But that is then a problem when coming to work on internet standards and having a discussion about it for engineering purposes isn't it?

GDPR defines personal data and processing of personal data and is reasonably clearly set out - and it can be assessed measured, adjudicated and applied. To avoid confusion between data protection and privacy does that mean that you are proposing working group is to consider issues that are then unrelated to GDPR? 

If so, compliance could better be assured by making that clear in the charter, So the charter would be amended to ensure that all discussions relate to matters that are unrelated to the processing of personal data as defined in GDPR. That would exclude from the charter's scope matters that could be addressed in GDPR. Would that be an improvement?

by your own admission this is not a matter that is addressed or dealt with if privacy is defined nowhere; it is an open issue and referring back to previous debates can't resolve the issue for the scope of the work to be done here can they?                       

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by timcowen
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/31#issuecomment-1170231581 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2022 16:49:19 UTC