Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 17 Next »

CISWG Research:

Inviting all members to participate in research by any of the following means;

  1. fill in this survey for your own organisation's service,
  2. use this assessment on a service you are working on,
  3. use the survey to do an assessment on a service you are interested in, 
  4. share this survey t community as a tool to assess authorisation advocate it's use

Assessing terms for Authorisation;

Including Consent, Permission and Agreement

How to Participate

Discuss should be directed on the CISWG list (or on a call if time permits) comment on this page (in comment box below), suggest improvements or ask for clarification on this survey with the aim to start inviting people to use the survey after the CISWG meeting on September 12.  

Design of assessment -  To make this easy, the survey is narrowly scoped and focused on just collecting data to review, in order to set a basis for follow up research (if applicable). 

For more information contact team@openconsent.com  (responsible for administering this assessment) 

Key Links

Assessment (Survey) Summary

This is a short survey focused on assessing the terms used authorisations, consent based interaction, in permissions and agreements.

This is for identifying the terminology and taxonomy in an specific service - it is for research for the identification of terms used for authorisations, permission-ing, agreements  and consent.  

The scope of this research is to correlate answers by industry, authorisation format,  state legal  justification and to look at how these conform to the Consent Receipt (personal data processing receipt) and ISO 29184.  The object will be to produce a summary and breakdown of the responses for use with future CISWG works. 

Produce a summary that can contribute towards the development of common use and practice for use of terms in identity management, catalogue common dark patterns and identify existing or similar best practices that are conferment to consent receipt and ISO 29184 works.  The 

in contrast to transparency provided by a consent receipt format to identify a set of criteria for evaluating against a baseline for the development that is provided by the  consent receipt v.1  + Legal requirements for the context.

CISWG Terminology Assessment:  link to the survey/assessment,  

link GICS codes (preferred to identify industry codes for this assessment - GICS_structure_formatted.xlsx) 





Background

The Kantara Initiative Consent & Information Sharing WG, has produced the Consent Receipt Specification, and is now working on a broader Personal Data Processing Receipt Specification.  and has already produced a consent receipt that has been a basis for developing digital privacy records for services in and used with other standards efforts, industry and government.

The objective of this survey is to collect and audit the use of terms in the authorisation and permission-ing of personal data, and contrast against the standards used. The survey will aim is to inform the actual use of terms, and their interpretation from those who use them. As well as to consider a consent centric understanding of the various legal justifications for processing personal data.

More information can be found on the Kantara CISWG Wiki

Survey Sections

  • Respondent/ Organisation Information
  • Context of Data Collection
  • Terms Used for the Authorisation of Data Capture 
  • Additional Questions Relevant to Quality of Authorisation

Research & Discussion

  • Conformance to best practice
  • Security & Privacy Risks, surveillance and dark patterns. e.g. → identification of the malicious and benign mis use of transparency. 
  • Terms: Legal, Technical, Business,
    • Deeper Sub-Topics - (of keen interest to review) Contract Vs Privacy, Governance Vs platform permissions, data trusts

Links to research to help inform this study

Most EU cookie ‘consent’ notices are meaningless or manipulative, study finds

Dark pattern research:


  • No labels