Re: Request for comments on priorities

+1 to everything Brooks said.

My #1 priority would be to make a list of terms requiring (clearer)
definition, prioritize them and start working through the list.  In
Amsterdam, I jotted down terms that seemed to fall onto this list and
encouraged everyone to add to it.  That
list<https://docs.google.com/a/techfreedom.org/document/d/1JBfkFnVQ8miH3kgxxreyz2LQj6vl5BfACfNUIGK8l2Y/edit>has
not been updated since or prioritized but it would be a good place to
start.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dobbs, Brooks <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>wrote:

>     1) Define tracking.  It is simply an embarrassment that we are this
> far in and haven't set out what we were trying to do.  I am not sure we can
> retrofit the upper floors of a building as we seek to build its foundation,
> but without a foundation I don't like the security of the structure.   I
> suspect that if this effort fails it will make a great case study in
> setting out objectives before you start working.
>
>  2) Consider goals and scope.  Along the previous lines - what have we
> set out to do?  Is there a harm we have set out to address or have we
> sought merely to assuage user concerns about a system they don't understand
> by deactivating such system rather than educating on the relative cost
> benefits of the system?  Are we here to enable informed user choice with
> respect to data collection and use? Only use? Only a specific use? Only a
> certain set of actors?  Are we well served meeting these goals by creating
> artificial distinctions like 1st and 3rd party which don't map well to
> common practices?
>
>  3) Provide explicit guidance with respect to choice requirements.  Given
> how far the requirements have moved from a common understanding of
> "tracking" and the limitations with regard to who those requirements apply,
> what does it mean to get consent?  By way of example, I'd cite a current
> browser implementation of DNT which reads "Tell websites I do not want to
> be tracked".  Holding aside that "tracked" now means what the spec implies
> and not what a common man would understand it to mean, there is still the
> greater problem that the common understanding of "websites" is  the 1st
> party site which you are visiting.  This leaves you with the incredible
> outcome that a common man's understanding is at direct odds with what the
> spec would actually require.  Given the redefinition of common terms
> (websites, track, etc), what can consent mean?  If we have arrived at a
> point where the complexity of the spec potentially does not allow for
> meaningful or informed choice, can this be remedied?
>
>   --
>
> *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer | *KBM Group* | Part of the
> Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com*
> *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
>
>
> *
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message.
>



-- 
Berin Szoka | President, TechFreedom | @TechFreedom
bszoka@techfreedom.org | @BerinSzoka