Editors:
| Version | Status | Writer | Editor | reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
v.01 | X | Mark Lizar - ; Summary of Intent | Mary Hodder | |
| v.02 | X | Mark Lizar & Mary Hodder Stakeholder Analysis | John Wunderlich | |
| v.03 | X | John & Mark: Summary of Compliance Contents | Mary Hodder | |
| v.04 | Current | Spec Outline: Mark Lizar PDS Walkthrough: Markus Sabadello Open Notice CR Demo: Mark Lizar | John Wunderlich | |
| v.05 | Next Edit |
...
- Former user (Deleted) insert walkthrough demo links)
- John Wunderlich edit the outline for draft 5
- Mark Lizar (Unlicensed) Finish Compliance Scale description and compliance audit rules (needs a table)
- Mark Lizar (Unlicensed) needs a first read through edit after many changes
- Mark Lizar (Unlicensed) needs Open Notice Demo (in progress)
Related Documents:
- CISWG: Consent Requirements Map: (spreadsheet of laws/principles for receipt and data control R&D)
- Latest Consent Receipt Template
- Hackathon Video and Convergathon Hack Notes from July 12&13 2014 -->
- Scale of Compliance to measure the legal compliance of a consent receipt
...
Respect Network (RN) Technical Demo:
- Store a Consent Receipt in your RN personal cloud using XDI: http://amazon-respect-consent.herokuapp.com/
- List Consent Receipts in your RN personal cloud: http://open-notice.github.io/respect-network-receipts/
...
Specification by example (SBE) is a collaborative approach to defining requirements and business-oriented functional tests for software products based on capturing and illustrating requirements using realistic examples instead of abstract statements. It is applied in the context of agile software development methods, in particular behavior-driven development. This approach is particularly successful for managing requirements and functional tests on large-scale projects of significant domain and organisational complexity.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior-driven_development)
A key aspect of 'specification by example' is creating a single source of truth about required changes from all perspectives. This latest version specification with this document title is the single source of truth.
Objective
The aim of the specification is to produce a the minimum compliant capable consent receipt that directly links all required policies (open notices) to the consent receipt.
...
| Field Name | Description | Purpose/Explanation | Reason Why This Field is Required | Cloud Receipt Capture & Sign: Format example in (XDI) Note: following lines all prepended with ([=]!:uuid:1111/[+]!:uuid:9999) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Subject | Name or pseudonym of the user at minimum, | Data Subject is primary party to consent | Is the consent contributor and primary party of the consent, (which is why this is the first field of the MVCR) if not signed by Data Subject then its use post consent may be limited. | Data Subject: Alice [=]!:uuid:1111 |
| Address (and jurisdiction) of Data Controller | Name of the entity issuing the receipt | Should be the entity/organization that is in control of the personal data and is responsible for consent compliance. | Is the Data Controller and is the primary party responsible for administration of the consent | Data Controller: Amazon [+]!:uuid:9999 |
| Purpose | The purposes for which the personal information is being collected. | this is a single purpose at minimum linked to the short purpose notice, or policy of purpose. | A purpose notice is a basic and common legal requirement and functionally a requirement of consent. | [#receipt]!:uuid:1234[<#purpose>]<@0>&/&/"We need to process your payment." [#receipt]!:uuid:1234[<#purpose>]<@1>&/&/"We need your data to prevent fraud." [#receipt]!:uuid:1234[<#purpose>]<@2>&/&/"We will advertise to you." |
| Location of Consent | The location of the consent provision. from which the consent receipt originates.(For example the web page with the consent button. ) | This indicates the 'point of consent' - hopefully a button where the user clicked "I agree" or "I consent" (i.e. the biggest lie) Can be a URI, URL, URN, This can also be a physical space where surveillance legal notice requirements exist (EU) - Global Positioning System (GPS) |
| |
| Sensitive Personal Data Flag (Y/N) | Flag to categorise the information collected as sensitive or not (Y/N) | Each jurisdiction has classifications of sensitive personal information: The generally include health, financial, Child Protection, Religious, Union categorisations | If Yes, then additional notice requirements are needed to confirm its compliance status. If No, then the consent is automatically compliant | |
Third Party Sharing | Flag whether data is shared with third parties. (Y/N) | If true, then compliance is dependent upon additional notice requirements not present in a MVCR. This can be addressed with the "Third Party Sharing" extension. | If Yes, then additional notice requirements are needed to confirm its compliance status. If No, then the consent is automatically compliant | |
| Timestamp | When consent was obtained | To record when the user, either by implication or explicity, granted consent for the purposes described. | ||
| Privacy Policy | The issuing entity's privacy policy (either inline copy, or reference to URI) | If not available, should provide a notice that it is missing | Is the minmum Policy (or short notice) Needed to create a consent receipt. | |
| Context | Flag wether the Operational Requirements are present or not. (Y/N/Unknown) | For the presentation of consent there are contextual and prescriptive requirements in legislation, a check list of these elements is being crated in this draft below. (this list is living draft ) | Consent has contextual compliance requirements for the notice to be sufficent. These depend on the location of the consent and data subject. An organisation can agree to add address this list when implementing the consent receipt. |
...
Context: Operational Context Legal Requirements
...
for
...
MVCR
...
Context (in progress)
...
Each jurisdiction has prescriptive text which need to accompany specific types of consent as well as legally written terminology for these requirements. With notices there are also contextual and prescriptive requirements in legislation.
This table will collect a check list of these elements is being crated in this draft below.
| Context | Description | UK UK DPA 1998Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29 EU Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:EN:HTML | EU | USA | Canada | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contact of Data Controller (DC) | Legally required to provide contact details of the DCOnline Consent | To provide notice at point of consent the consequences of not provisioning consent | X | X | Address of Data Controller (DC) | ||||
| Legally required to provide contact details of the DCOnline Consent | To indicate what is required and optional information to provide for consent | X | X | Purpose(s) | Legally required to provide purpose for data control | X | X|||
| Physical Consent | Sign posted upon entry to physical space | Third Party Legal Requirements | This is a flag to see if additional notice extensions are requirements to assess compliance | X | X |
Notice Legal Requirements Included for the MVCR Format (in progress)
...
Context: Operational Context Legal Requirements for MVCR Context (in progress)
Each jurisdiction has prescriptive text which need to accompany specific types of consent as well as legally written terminology for these requirements. With notices there are also contextual and prescriptive requirements in legislation.
This table will collect a check list of these elements is being crated in this draft below.
| Context | Description | UK Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:EN:HTML | EU | USA | Canada | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online Consent | To provide notice at point of consent the consequences of not provisioning consentNotice Requirements Receipt Meets | Description | UK UK DPA 1998 | EU Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:EN:HTML | USA | Canada | |
| Contact of Data Controller (DC) | Legally required to provide contact details of the DC | X | X | ||||
| Address of Data Controller (DC) | Legally required to provide contact details of the DC | X | X | ||||
| Purpose(s) | Legally required to provide purpose for data control | X | X | ||||
| Third Party Legal Requirements Transparency | This is a flag to see if additional notice extensions are requirements to assess compliance | X | X | ||||
| Online Consent | To indicate what is required and optional information to provide for consent | X | X | ||||
| Physical Consent | Sign posted upon entry to physical space | Sensitive Personal Information Collection Transparency | This is a flag to see if additional notice extensions are requirements to assess compliance | X | X |
Extensions for the MVCR
An extension can be appended to the MVCR to strengthen the compliance of a consent receipt,
...
| Extension Type | Field Name | Description | Instructions | Legal Requirement (this item must be listed on LR table) | Context (this item must be listed in the Operational Requirements table) | (usability/Interoperability Benefit) | XDI Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Jurisdiction | The jurisdictions of the parties: the data protection authority is mandatory. |
| Usability: enables receipt to be used as evidence or for the purpose of legal data controls out of context of the consent event. | |||
| Core | |||||||
| Core | Sensitive Data | ||||||
| Core | 3rd Party Trusted Services Extension (this is the functionality for Registry) | ability to add trusted services to the minimum viable consent receipt | This incorporates 3rd party sharing and purpose listing format | ||||
| Consent Receipt Request Extension | This is a button a user can press to request a consent receipt from a business |
|
| This is for all contexts of the MVCR | Usability | ||
| core | Policy Extension for Consent Cookie Policy Link | The issuing entity's cookie policy Link (either inline copy, or reference to URI) | If not available, should provide a notice that it is missing or self assert an icon | Legally in the EU a cookie requires explicit assent |
| ||
| core | Policy Extension for Terms of Service Link | The issuing entity's terms of service (either inline copy, or reference to URI) | If not available, should provide a notice that it is missing | Legally Terms need to be open and accessible in order to be fair and reasonable. |
| ||
| Policy Extension | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Extension Example: Third Party Sharing Extension V.1
This incorporates 3rd party sharing and purpose listing format
The first extension for the minimum viable consent receipt is that of linking to the consent receipt of list of third parties personal data is shared with. In some jurisdictions it is only required that the categories of personal data be provided.
If in the MVCR the "Third Party Sharing" flag is true, this is an extension they can use to make the receipt show this level of compliance.
Enter Table: For Extension structure of 3rd party transparency
(link to Table:
...
Trusted Services
Trusted services/networks and frameworks, can be used to meet or exceed notice(and therefore consent) legal requirements. Or to address the need for assurance and trust for people so that consent and its management can be automated and more usable.
...
Amazon Respect Use Case: With the Respect Network and Open Notice
(Note: Amazon Respect is a Fictitious organisation used here only as an example)
(http://open-notice.github.io/consent-receipt/amazon-mock/signup.html)
Implementation of consent receipt which is signed & created by a DC and stored in a personal Cloud.
...
MVCR Mock Up for Amazon Respect Use Case
Legal: Compliance Audit & Scale
MVCR Compliance Audit
Each field on the MVCR contains legal notice requirements, each of these components are listed in and the presence of these are counted and a flag is added to record if any of these self asserted claims have been disputed and not resolved.
The MVCR has a maximum rating of compliant. Additional Ratings are possible with extensions.
Notice Compliance Checklist | Non Compliant | Partially Compliant | Compliant | Above Compliant | Trusted | User Managed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contact of DC |
|
| X |
| ||
Address of DC |
| X |
|
| ||
Purpose(s) |
| X |
|
| ||
Sensitive Data (If NO) |
|
| X |
| ||
Share with 3rd Party (If No) |
|
| X |
| ||
| Any of the above self asserted is Disputed or un verifiable (Y/N Flag) (If No) ( if Yes and unresolved = Non-Compliant) | X |
MVCR Compliance Scale
The compliance scale is the social aspect of the MVCR Specification. The scale provides a simple icon for a universal measure of MVCR compliance.
Summary of Benefits to MVCR
- Transparency: The MVCR receipt is a common format for the legally required policies which provide notice. links to all notices and demonstrate a much higher level of minimum viable notice (for consent) legal compliance. This standard is intended to augment the existing legal notice and consent infrastructures that is already in place and reward greater transparency of consent. .
- Extensible: The MVCR Spec is intended to be easily extensible and auditable, with a jurisdicitional legal compliance audit built in for making transparent legal context and controls of a consent transaction. Meaning that consent legal notice requirements are different by jurisdictions, industry, for various sensitive data types, for sharing to 3rd parties, tracking (cookie consents), in additional to personal and contextual consent preferences of the individual. Extensions are notice requirements layered onto this MVCR format to meet and match legal requirements and trust frameworks to address cross jurisdictional management of consent.
- Trusted Services Vehicle: A receipt passed to the service user at time of consent provides a legal trust framework to build upon. As a result it is the MVCR is intended as a vehicle for delivering trusted services to the individual. A stakeholder can utilise trust services, which are then linked to the receipt, which further extend the compliance and "fast track" usability of consent and identity management by using a spec compliant receipt. Eg.privacy icons, TOS reputation, certifications, trusted networks, and protocols
- MVC is intended to be an all purpose consent process enhancement.
- This MVCR specification is intended to be used so any organisation can implement the spec and provide a MVCR.