- From: Martin Thomson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 05:42:04 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
This thread really has gone past the point where I think it is adding value. James asked why notice and consent (or choice; to allow for the ambiguity, I'll just abbreviate to N&C) is not *sufficient* and we've veered off into discussions of whether it might be *necessary* sometimes. Those little diversions seem to have been fruitful in terms of reiterating a few things that were worth repeating: namely, whatever we might standardize here won't give anyone a license to break applicable laws, so relying on N&C might be necessary in some cases. As far as the point of deeper disagreement, I don't see evidence of agreement regarding the sufficiency aspect. That is, I don't see any evidence that N&C might be *sufficient* basis for privacy protection. Wading through the rhetoric here, I'm only seeing one person who might be asserting that N&C is sufficient. Thankfully, we're chartered in a way that rules this debate [moot](https://patcg.github.io/charter.html#out-of-scope): > Features that support advertising but provide privacy by means that are primarily non-technical should be proposed elsewhere. That is, the charter assumes that this question has been decided. It would take a fairly creative reading of that text to lead someone to conclude that a system that relied on N&C - exclusively or extensively - for its privacy properties was in scope for this group. -- GitHub Notification of comment by martinthomson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/5#issuecomment-1056285002 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2022 05:42:05 UTC