W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Web Payments and Privacy

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:41:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKk7J-LWE2Xs3RiE7MmRcSw5A2VX8zYG2phZZXrQtApUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-webpayments@w3.org
On 7 February 2013 19:02, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:

> On 2/6/13 5:40 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Agreed. Would you mind taking a shot at a reply to them, Steven? We can
>> kick it back and forth on the mailing list, get some input from other
>> folks, and then send it back if there is general agreement that it would
>> be helpful.
> Certainly I'll give it a go. I expect the list to suggest major revisions,
> which is good because it will allow me to learn some things about what's
> actually going on. :-)
> Here's a proposed draft:
> +++++++++++++++
> From: Web Payments Community Group
> (public-webpayments@w3.org)
> To: Alexander Dix, Chairman, IWGDPT
> (International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications)
> Dear Mr. Dix,
> Thank you for your interest. We have received, read, and discussed your
> letter and the Working Paper on Privacy and Electronic Micropayment on the
> Internet.
> We are in agreement with the recommendations in the Working Paper. This
> group does not have legislative responsibility of any sort, but we agree
> that having an anonymous option both by legislation and technical capacity
> is ideal.
> The system currently being discussed and developed by us has already been
> designed to have that anonymity capability in several ways. There will be a
> network of PaySwarm Authorities (PA), where the user will create an
> account. Basic user-data anonymity could be achieved by using a pre-paid
> card, by using a non-traceable currency like Bitcoin to create the account,
> or, probably most important, could be offered as part of the Terms of
> Service of that particular PA. In fact the first  demonstration PA operates
> in this manner, and it's expected others will.
> So it seems to us that the technical side is not overly problematic. The
> political problem is more difficult. What we produce will have to follow
> the locally applicable laws in all jurisdictions.
> As you are certainly aware, the US and other countries operate with Know
> Your Customer legislation (KYC), and you indicate in your Working Paper
> there is proposed legislation in Germany of a similar nature that
> essentially prohibits anonymity. The KYC and anti-terrorist efforts are in
> some ways almost directly opposed to the anonymity needs. If a stand-off
> between these two factions continues, the unhealthy surreptitious use of
> data-mining to support advertising will probably continue also, and
> possibly increase.
> We have one general suggestion for how this stand-off might be resolved in
> legislation: institute a tiered system, for example as follows:
>     1. SMALL money transfers and purchases (which will by default have
>  anonymity as an option).
>     2. LARGE money transfers and purchases (which will require traceable
> I.D.)
>     3. LEGAL WARRANT: Purchases of ANY SIZE that show enough evidence of
> possible wrongdoing to trigger a legal warrant to force I.D. to be used.
> Perhaps it would be both politically acceptable and technically feasible
> to have such a system. The cross-over amount would be set by legislation.
> The huge bulk of human purchases on the Internet could be made at level
> one, anonymously (if the user chooses), while large transfers or suspect
> situations would require traceable I.D.
> What constitutes 'large' would require discussion, but for the sake of
> argument perhaps something in the range of $2500 US would allow most
> consumer commerce to be carried on anonymously if so chosen.
>  Sincerely,
> A.A,
> X.X,
> Y.Y,
> Z.Z.
> (for)
> Web Payments Community Group

Nice work.

I think is an important issue.

Perhaps relevant :


Which is the basis for opentransactions.

RIck Falkfinger raised this exact point at last year's bitcoin conference.
I.E. that privacy needs to be respected by legislators.  Indeed, the pirate
party, which he started, is I believe the third biggest political party in
berlin.  So it may be possible that this legislation can be pushed through
there and perhaps spread to a wider audience.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:42:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:22 UTC