Re: Issues for Monday Call

Rob,
We're agreed if there is no automaton.  If you attempt to add machine reading to the equation then unfortunately the web browser takes on liability (at least this has been their perspective to date on these types of discussions).
- Shane

Sent from mobile phone so please excuse brevity and typos.  
 
  On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Rob van Eijk<rob@blaeu.com> wrote:   
Thanks Shane,

You reply surely opens up our discussion in a positive way.

However, I do not think that there is any legal liability on the web 
browser as a processor in some part. If the browser collects telemetry 
for its own purposes or on behalf of another data controller, that is a 
scenario that I would love to keep out of the DNT debate. To keep things 
simple: the browser is not a legal entity but a means used by the 
consumer to visit a website or use a web service. Leaving the browser 
out of the picture, we can zoom in on the (real-time) transactional 
steps between the consumer and data controller towards consent.

Regards,
Rob



Shane M Wiley schreef op 2017-04-02 13:31:
> Unfortunately I won't be able to join on Monday but I think it's
> important to gain two key perspectives here:  browsers and publishers.
> 
> Any concepts of pre-flighting or automated processing place legal
> liability on the web browser as a processor in some part and if they
> are processing this outside of a contract with the publisher/3rd party
> one could argue they are acting as a controller in this regard
> (independent access and control).  Based on our initial discussions
> with browser vendors this was not something they were interested in
> but it would be helpful to hear from those that Rob's solution places
> the greatest burden upon.
> 
> I'm trying to understand how placing more in the TSO changes the
> dialogue with the user.  In either case a consent conversation must
> occur and any party can raise this through a UGE request which then
> points to their WKL which in turn carries all the information being
> discussed and likely more.
> 
> Attempting to add more structure feels like there is a goal of
> automation such that browsers take on considerably more liability and
> data controllers (publishers/3rd parties) are further removed from
> direct conversations with their users.  Those don't feel like
> appropriate goals for the working group.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> Sent from mobile phone so please excuse brevity and typos.
> 
>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Rob van Eijk
>> <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
>> 
>> To simplyfy the discussion, there are at least three scenario's:
>> 
>> A: pre-flight checking
>> B: consent by data controller for itself, its processors (same
>> party)
>> and any third parties that the controller can identify
>> (webResources)
>> C: consent by 3rd parties that cannot rely on OOBC or the consent by
>> the
>> data controller.
>> 
>> The TSR has different functions, or no fuction at all in these 3
>> scenario's. I think collating these scenario's confuses our
>> discussion.
>> If I have understood the discussion so far, Roy's comments see to
>> scenario B and possibly scenario C. Shané comments see mainly to
>> scenario B.
>> 
>> My assumption is that the more real-time the consent becomes, i.e.,
>> scenario C, the more information needs to be readily available and
>> presented to the user such that he/she can grant an exception. The
>> TSR
>> may be a good building block to use in real-time situations like
>> scenario C for third parties that cannot rely on G as a TSV. It can
>> be
>> parsed by browsers when the third party asks for an exception based
>> on
>> the information presented. Machine readable metadata in the TSR
>> means
>> that browsersetting can be rule based, which could be a huge benefit
>> for
>> both the third-party and the user.
>> 
>> Talk to you all on Monday,
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Rob
>> 
>> Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) schreef op 2017-04-01 17:09:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> thanks a lot for this detailed inputs.
>>> 
>>> It helps to clarify what fields are actually suggested and what
>> their
>>> content should be.
>>> 
>>> I tend to agree that this data is useful (or even required) for
>> GPDR
>>> compliance.
>>> 
>>> However, in the spirit of "minimal changes" I tend to suggest to
>> keep
>>> all data under the URL in a human-readable form.
>>> 
>>> What we need to clarify further is:
>>> - Why is the data required to be machine readable?
>>> - What actions will the browser take once it has read and parsed
>> this
>>> data?
>>> - What bad things would happen if the data continues to be
>> available in
>>> human-readable form only?
>>> - Why couldnt the fields be defined in a "EU compliance" note
>> (since
>>> they seem to be specific to the EU)?
>>> 
>>> If the browser will only store this data, then a consent-metadata
>> blob
>>> (JSON or so) would be sufficient. Further notes and best practices
>> can
>>> then structure this object further.
>>> 
>>> Just my 2cents. Let us discuss this further on monday.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> matthais
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 31.03.2017 19:36, Mike O'Neill wrote:
>>>> European Data Protection law has definite requirements for the
>>>> information made available to users. In my opinion the TSR is the
>> best
>>>> place for these elements because a) they are not only required
>> when
>>>> consent is given, or when it is the legal basis for processing,
>> and b)
>>>> the TSR is more accessible to privacy researchers, regulators and
>> 
>>>> browser extensions (if it was only available to the API we would
>> need
>>>> to add another API to report them).
>>>> 
>>>> They need not be mandatory in the TPE (though the simple string
>> name
>>>> property for controllers should be in my opinion), so why not put
>> them
>>>> in as a non-normative Addendum describing them as examples of TSR
>> 
>>>> extensibility.
>>>> 
>>>> I have assembled my suggestions in a document (in the repo drafts
>> 
>>>> folder):
>>>> 
>>>> https://w3c.github.io/dnt/drafts/Transparency.html
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
>>>>> [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org]
>>>>> Sent: 30 March 2017 08:11
>>>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-
>>>>> tracking@w3.org>
>>>>> Subject: Issues for Monday Call
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> based on the discussion last week. Below I codified an
>> alternative
>>>>> approach to resolving the TSR issues (based on the emails on the
>> list
>>>>> and input from last week).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Our list of issues is at:
>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/23
>>>>> Note that issues that are not resolved by end of April will be
>>>>> auto-pushed out to potential future releases.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> matthias
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----
>>>>> DISCUSSIONS FOR MONDAY
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Issue triage: Are there issues that are high priority and
>> must be
>>>>> resolved in April? If not, we can process without change.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. What additional fields are desired for simplifying compliance
>> in
>>>>> the EU?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note: So far I have not seen any submitted proposals for an
>>>>> additional
>>>>> concrete field on the list. If I receive none, IMHO we can close
>> this
>>>>> discussion on monday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Best way to communicate "consent context".
>>>>> Our current approach was that the TSR serves two roles:
>>>>> A. Discovery (before visiting site) of essential tracking
>>>>> information
>>>>> B. Sufficient context to give clear meaning to
>>>>> user-granted exception. This role triggered that we
>>>>> plan to require TSR if the exception API is used.
>>>>> It also fuels our discussion "what extra fields are
>>>>> needed"
>>>>> Roy suggested that TSR may be the best place for (B). Let us see
>> 
>>>>> whether
>>>>> we find a better place for the consent-context information.
>>>>> One suggestion was that it should be part of the API call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. Asyncronous API / Update Events (Continued)
>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/13
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Anything else we want to discuss
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>