Re: [patwg-charter] Include references to W3C Process and Antitrust Guidelines only (#32)

To be clear, the positions which you are referring to are:

> In the 30 years since development of the web began, it has become clear that the web platform can often be used in ways that subvert its original mission, or even be used to cause harm. The web should be a platform that helps people and provides a net positive social benefit. As we continue to evolve the web platform, we must therefore consider the ethical implications of our work. The web must be for good.

and

> 2.2 The web should not cause harm to society

> When we are adding a feature or technology to the web, we will consider what harm it could do to society or groups, especially to vulnerable people. We will prioritize potential benefits for web users over potential benefits to web developers, content providers, user agents, advertisers or others in the ecosystem, in line with the [priority of constituencies](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies). We will ensure the requirements and views of marginalized communities and underrepresented groups are heard and respected. We will build new web technologies in a collaborative manner according to open processes (for example, the [W3C process](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/)), and adhering to codes of conduct (such as the W3C [Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/)).

And the charter language is:

> The mission of the Private Advertising Technology Working Group motivated by the W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles

And your statement is that stating that as a motivation would be... and I hesitate to use the dictionary definition here, but I am at a loss as to what else you could possibly mean... a "religious or spiritual matter". Is this use of non-secular a reference to some sort of legal version of the term I am unfamiliar with? 

**Can you clarify for me which one or more of these statements you disagree with?**

1. "the web platform can often be used in ways that subvert its original mission, or even be used to cause harm" 
2. "when we are adding a feature or technology to the web, we will consider what harm it could do to society or groups, especially to vulnerable people."
3. "We will ensure the requirements and views of marginalized communities and underrepresented groups are heard and respected."
4. "We will build new web technologies in a collaborative manner according to open processes"

I'm skipping the priority of constituencies because that is a general W3C principle outside of this document. 

And to be clear, being motivated by these principles allows us to discuss them and refer back to them, it does not force us to either one, both or neither of your stated possible positions:

>  Some people will consider the possibility of a technology being used to cause harm a reason to remove or interfere with that technology. Others will see it as an opportunity to improve compliance with laws to reduce the risk of it being abused.

Indeed part of the advantage of such language is that we will be able to discuss what the right value and application of those and other positions might be instead of being ideologically locked. 

I cannot see how using the TAG document as a reference and noting that it is a motivating force for this group could possibly be considered.... religious. I cannot see how you could find a rough consensus on that statement or that as grounds to remove it from the charter. 

> 'harm' is not defined and in any case is outside the scope of a technical standards body. 

One: the point is not to define it, the point is to note that our goal is consider as many possible harms as we can and add that consideration into our process for discussing technology. And I don't think most would agree that this process is outside the scope of a technical standards body or any standards work. Considering the proposals and what they might be used for and how that might effect users, our first constituency, is important. And the many types of potential harms and how they might effect different groups differently is one of the main reasons we must try and be flexible in our definition.

Two: Its use in this respect is not abnormal. Some examples:

The NIST privacy framework states:

> The Privacy Framework describes these data operations in the singular as a data action and collectively as data processing. The problems individuals can experience as a result of data
processing can be expressed in various ways, but NIST describes them as ranging from dignity-type effects such as embarrassment or stigmas to more tangible **harms** such as discrimination, economic loss, or physical harm

(emphasis mine)

- [A Mozilla and Ford Foundation funded report](https://www.harrietkingaby.com/reports) notes a set of relevant potential harms around tracking, identification and data sales on page 7 - (see the Full Report link)

- The IEEE runs [a forum](https://tech-forum.computer.org/mitigating-societal-harms/) on "Mitigating Societal Harms in a Social Media World brings together policymakers and technologists to explore the intersection of current technical efforts with public policies, and the resulting impacts to society." 

And the fact that privacy-breaching technologies *can* cause harms is without doubt. I don't think you would disagree with this (but just in case, here's two of many relevant articles: [1](https://datasociety.net/library/weaponizing-the-digital-influence-machine/), [2](https://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/programmatic-tech-is-a-front-for-psychological-warfare/)). And it is without a doubt a **motivation** of this group to avoid such harms to users using the technologies. 

If there are indeed points among the four listed above that you disagree with, please tell us which ones and state an alternative definition of "harm" that we could consider. 

----

As an additional note, I do not see alternative definitions as requested above and this conversation has shifted to a different portion of the document. Should I take this to mean that you do not intend to present alternative definitions for:

- [cross-site or cross context recognition](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/#hl-recognition-cross-site)
- [same-site or same-context recognition](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/#hl-recognition-same-site)

?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by AramZS
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/32#issuecomment-1171515491 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2022 17:56:30 UTC