- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 13:02:08 -0500
- To: James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>, "public-web-adv@w3.org" <public-web-adv@w3.org>
- Cc: Katherine Wei <kwei@zetaglobal.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Nick Doty <ndoty@cdt.org>, Kris Chapman <kristen.chapman@salesforce.com>, Sam Goto <goto@google.com>, Beri Lee <berilee@google.com>, dan sinclair <dsinclair@google.com>, Heather Flanagan <hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com>, Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com>
James, On 2022-02-08 10:34, James Rosewell wrote: > Robin's statement regarding the operation of GPC and mine are compatible > with one another. You claimed: "One consequence of work to reduce data sharing between different internet domains, such as Privacy Sandbox or GPC, is to significantly increase the value of directly identifiable personal data such as email addresses and telephone numbers." This claim is patently false. GPC is not domain-based and applies equally to email or phone numbers, the value of which it therefore cannot possibly increase. Claiming that our views on this are "compatible" is simply dishonest. Your ceaseless tactic of confidently advancing a set of false statements, being called out for being wrong, then shifting the frame and claiming you had been saying something else all along is as disingenuous as it is transparent. As I said my original post, I had reluctantly stepped in to flag your disinformation on the off chance that an inexperienced bystander might have found themselves fooled by it. Having done that, I see no reason from this exchange to update my conclusion that you are acting in bad faith, and will consequently return to ignoring your contributions. -- Robin Berjon VP Data Governance The New York Times Company
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2022 18:02:24 UTC