- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:41:44 +0200
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
All, I tend to agree with Roy on the point that protocols "that frame any communication so that both parties can understand each other have been successful". Furthermore, the DNT buildingblocks defining the DNT protocol in the TPE document may help parties to become comliant with local law. Whether it is an informed consent legal framework, or emphasize is put on regulating data use, our task should be to accommodate all common scenario's which companies need to understand users and other parties. A focus on the protocol shows that it could include building blocks that we have not discussed, e.g., to establish property rights over data, or transitivity of a user-granted exception between SSP's, DSP's, and/or DMP's. It all depends on what parties need in order to understand eachother. From the European perspective I hope we can focus on adding metadata to the protocol such that parties can express the purpose(s) of the data being processed. Mike and I proposed qualifiers strings, and I hope we can discuss later on to get a common understanding about them. The TSR is a great building block in a multi layered approach to (machine readible) transparency. Regards, Rob Roy T. Fielding schreef op 2016-10-21 20:22: >> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:35 AM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Admittedly, I’ve more or less dropped out of the W3C process, but I >> still get the emails. I must say it seems very strange to me to have >> a standard that specifies how to send a DNT message (TPE), but to have >> nothing about how you’re supposed to comply when you get one (TCS). > > For networking protocols, it is normal for a standard to tell us how > to communicate, > rather than what must be communicated. In fact, I'd say that all of > the protocols > that tell people what they must do have failed miserably (even in the > real world), > whereas protocols that frame any communication so that both parties > can understand > each other have been successful. That is certainly the case for IP, > TCP, HTTP, etc. > > For example, courtroom protocol in the US is usually very formal, with > opportunities > to exchange key terms like "guilty" or "not guilty", and a certain > order to the > proceedings, but no hint of what compliance might mean because that > would be > specific to each case, region, and applicable laws. > > The TPE can stand alone as a communication protocol because it assumes > that people > will eventually have a common set of key terms to communicate > compliance (as > expressed in the compliance array). The people who want to communicate > will be > the ones who motivate the establishment of common terms. We only frame > the > communication. > > Governments have the power to legislate, which is essentially the power > to tell > people what to do (or not do). In our parts of the world, that power is > only > given to those who are elected representatives of the people. I think > this > working group spent a great deal of time off the rails because it was > trying > to legislate without any power to do so. If we can create a technical > framework > in which to communicate, I am sure that the folks with real power will > eventually > figure out what exactly they want communicated. > > Cheers, > > ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2016 12:42:15 UTC