2014-03-10 Meeting Notes

Owned by Mark Lizar (Unlicensed)
Last updated: Mar 11, 2014
4 min read

Date

Mar 10, 2014

Attendees

Goals

  • Discuss NSTIC Proposal
  • Discuss Next Proposals
  • Discuss Architecture

Discussion Items

Discussion Item 1

  • Do companies have to respond to query within jurisdictional context, and how about cross-jurisdictionally?
  • Dazaah Greenwood (MIT) highlight trade association as a venue to channel the consent receipt request through. Leads to points: What companies need to respond to and why? Legal necessities for companies. 
  • Let's let them (companies and trade associations) highlight what issues they have with the consent receip request
  • John highlights specific context of California that gives us reason to leverage our request there
  • Mary is bringing up value of jurisdictional case law and re-enforces the standard reason why there is incentive for us
  • Innis: Need to point to something concrete within jurisdiction to ensure company compliance
  • Mark: Pull in regional and international standards as well as jurisdictional law
  • Innis: If we are challenged, we need a more concrete rebuttal to offer companies seeking to reject jurisdiction (we need an actual case rather than airing privacy rights en masse); we need the basis as a decision
  • Mark: Let's map the UK version onto the US/California version and see where we can build and differentiate on the two

Discussion Item 2: Individual Use of Consent Receipt

  • Mary: Re wide use, the "consent receipt" is now in the public domain and within 'ownership' of the ON group so IP contributors can engage it publicly but there is no individual exclusive claim for profit; companies success for reasons beyond the technology we are developing; from the view of the user, it is beneficial to have a ubiquitous product that becomes a standard 
  • Mark: There is a difficult challenge in deciding what IP goes in and what goes out, but it widely marketable and Valentino is highlighting that
  • Mary: Need to go over Kantara Agreement to highlight any issues and obligations, specific call next week or Thursday (integrating it into wider call, holding it in widest forum);
    •  Tuesday next week

Discussion Item 3: UK Consent Receipt

  • Mark: Re creating a UK consent receipt, we need to agree on plan/purpose to understand what our path is and target research and development of local jurisdictions (benefit from Kantara process); Inclined to adapt our existing model; Issues with UK version come from potentially forking our efforts
  • Innis: Let Iain do the work as this will prevent Mark from becoming focus divided and develop the map
  • Mark: How about we use the UK before Ireland as the next phase of the development so that everyone wins
  • Innis: Potential for pan-European development no matter what country we start in
  • Mark: Multiple laws in each jurisdiction, cross-jurisdictionally, and their compliance to regional laws (i.e. ECD, EC Data Directive)
  • Innis: There is a legal minefield in navigating new jurisdictions so multiple contributors is great
  • Mark: Develop approach that is more method oriented, which will come through with tests and experience

Discussion Item 4: NSTIC Application / Funding Oppertunities

  • Mary: NSTIC application has been accepted for submission; attachment has been re-submitted to them to make this possible... We're in!
  • Mary: Because the US fails to provide privacy rights, we have space to contribute to develop regulatory persuasion and to companies, building beyond Do-Not-Track
  • Mary: There is the Knight Foundation that we need to tackle by 18 March 2014, max. $1million
  • Mark: There are also major EU and EC funding opportunities that will require as much or more work as NSTIC so we need to be strategic in our development
  • Mark: We need to finalise 5 page summary of Consent Receipt project
  • Mark: Send list to John re EU and EC funding opportunities
  • Mark: linking options with HiiL, Southampton, and German Commissioner's office
  • Mark: Colette will look into what is feasible in limited timeframe for EC funding
  • Innis: WIll get list of different funding sources and share with Mark, sort time/money from Common Terms and Par
  • Mark: We need to figure out feasible workload, coordination between all parties will be big burden as well as coordinating application; need for resources for this coordination side of things

Action Items:

  • UK Version of the Consent Receipt
  • TSB Feasibility Funding for Equipment for parallel project (12 March 2014)
  • Knight Foundation application due on 18 March 2014
  • Visuals for 13 March 2014, Knight Foundation (recommendations/contributions welcome!; Mary suggests rustic & passionate video works for crowdfunding drives.. could work here; John suggests networking David Bond of "Finding David" for future needs, or visualise transaction at grocery store; Mary will collect stock images and Flickr non-commercial re-use images in grocery store/identity items to create narrative in inexpensive way; there is an explosion of creative thought and Mary's friend might let us sell people on their grocery shelves!; Mark will get Ivan to do an initial sketch)
    • The Facebook Super market - the current version
      Advertiser pushes cart around the Facebook store, users are on the shelves, sharing data with each other (photos?), 
      but as advertiser and Facebook employees walk by, they have to pull big cards with words of personal data out of their giant wallets..
    • The Facebook Super market - the future version
      User pushes cart around the Facebook store, advertisers are on the shelves, offering things 
      but as Users walks by, they can or cannot pull in something to their cart, but when user pays at counter, they get a consent receipt in exchange for their personal data on big cards out of their giant wallets..

 

TimeItemWhoNotes
    

Action Items

  •