[Pearg] About consent (Was: I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 06 August 2020 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCD63A0E7C for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F9tzH-1sO_xa for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [92.243.4.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 564E03A0E94 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id A9941A0271; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:36:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D454DEC0B0D; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:32:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:32:22 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, pearg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20200806193222.GA4787@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <159466596628.22724.642459259274073600@ietfa.amsl.com> <116747697.938.1596554741142@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20200804185831.GA17517@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <336581179.1095.1596613241405@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <336581179.1095.1596613241405@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 18.04 (bionic)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/hF6JxZSwg3m-f4pjZPOpOOtXOs8>
Subject: [Pearg] About consent (Was: I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <pearg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pearg/>
List-Post: <mailto:pearg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:36:28 -0000

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:40:41AM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> Under this definition - or any other definition based on consent

Note that I did not mention consent but desire. This is because, in
Internet policy speak, "consent" is used for something which is quite
different from a real consent: just clicking "I agree" on a button,
whithout reading the dozens of pages of the terms of use, code of
conduct or whatever. For the end user, it is reasonable to click
without reading since they have no choice, anyway. (Another good
reason for not reading the text is because it was written by
californian lawyers so ordinary humans cannot really understand it.)

This is why GDPR, in its wisdom
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj>, says "Consent is
presumed not to be freely given if it does not allow separate consent
to be given to different personal data processing operations despite
it being appropriate in the individual case, or if the performance of
a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the
consent despite such consent not being necessary for such
performance." According to this vision, most of the time, on the
Internet, consent was not freely given.

To summarize: "consent" is now a very dangerous term and it is better
not to use it.