Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] First-Party Sets (#342)

> Hi @krgovind - Just thinking about this:
> 
> > The primary goal of the FPS policy is to prevent abuse that may be possible by formation of sets with unrelated domains.
> 
> In the context of the governance discussion. I think it's clear from the discussion we've had on this issue and in our calls that "same organization" is not a technical concept – it's a social / legal / regulatory concept. So I'm wondering whether "preventing abuse" could be expressed in a purely technically way? (For example, the "a site can only be part of one set" requirement.) The transparency mechanism you mentioned above also could serve as a deterrent to abuse.

@torgo - We did initially take the approach of using purely technical mitigations for abuse, and also provided for a revocation-style blocklist in the cases that abuse was later detected. However, the "Incentives to Form Sets" concern raised by @johnwilander on privacycg/first-party-sets/issues/6 and @ehsan on privacycg/first-party-sets/issues/7 led us to pivot to a policy-based allowlist. It might be interesting to have a discussion on whether a transparency mechanism would successfully address this specific concern. 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342#issuecomment-822861608