“Google was only member to vote no, while 24 others approved.” Not understating this: where data/privacy policy intersects with competition policy may be the most consequential work of our digital future. It’s where Google holds its power and is failing the public good.https://twitter.com/MattRogerson/status/1177174759597105152 …
If privacy matters, grounded analysis matters. Without it, things that seem harmless could be devastating (and vise versa). Without a model, there's precious little way to help feature developers improve at scale.
@w3ctag asked PING for this *repeatedly* in the years I served.
-
-
Which brings us the "formal objection" mechanism. In the W3C process, FO's serve many purposes, but are often a way to request changes to a proposed charter when a member thinks change is essential for the success of a group. Here, we (Google) requested a model be in in scope.
-
Charters last years, so if we want to get this done soon, it has to be in the charter *now*. A formal model was not in the draft charter, so we used to tool at hand (FO) to require that the chairs and W3C staff respond on the record to this request.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is the DHS Menlo Report model. The comprehensive stakeholder analysis and assistive questions in the “Companion” are worth looking at. I have publications on how to apply to botnets, social honeypots, etc. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6173001 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.