- From: James Aylett via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:49:09 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
I'm not sure this is bike shedding - I think clarity around the way we talk to each other is critical to have confidence that when we say we agree that we are actually in agreement. In this vein, avoiding the use of any term in a way such that any significant contributor to the discussion believes there is conflation or confusion seems the right thing to do. What I believe we're talking about is technical measures in the design of the system (and crucially its data outputs) which inhibit the possible purposes to which data that exits the system can be put. We need a fairly short and clear phrase for this if it's going to be a criterion we want to assess proposals against. One reason not to conflate it with the common understanding of purpose limitation as articulated above is that we may also want to leverage that concept (for instance by recommending that implementing parties make suitable public attestations, even auditably) where we cannot inhibit certain unwanted uses for data outputs by technical means and system / protocol design alone. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jaylett-annalect Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/docs-and-reports/issues/15#issuecomment-1290934239 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2022 17:49:11 UTC