- From: Brian May via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:15:30 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
> This reads like an uncommon use of "purpose limitation". @npdoty Appreciate your callout; agree terms of art should not be confused as it leads to unnecessary disambiguation overhead. What do you think of "Purpose Constraint" as an alternative? > We should pursue both: limiting the data that's accessible and getting promises that the data that is shared is only used for the specific purpose for which it is provided. Although I think both are worth pursuing, I think this group ought to consider promises out of scope. However, technical and data-based evidence that can be used to affirm or refute promise claims should be in scope. For example, we can't enforce a promise that data won't be tampered with, but we can sign the data so that tampering can be detected. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bmayd Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/docs-and-reports/issues/15#issuecomment-1285823162 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2022 16:15:32 UTC