Re: [Secdispatch] CCPA Do-Not-Sell

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 27 March 2020 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972B93A093B for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 jE_KN9hHf9YO for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 B84C33A08B8 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 02RJSCx9010029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Mar 2020 15:28:14 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:28:12 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Sebastian Zimmeck <szimmeck@wesleyan.edu>
Cc: secdispatch@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200327192812.GP50174@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <CAD-GkkVSkS63pvMG7g355xLX3MDO10Mg0nrVgj1dh33JNymvpw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAD-GkkVSkS63pvMG7g355xLX3MDO10Mg0nrVgj1dh33JNymvpw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/hAPYorta9exAtj90WVUP6bx3wic>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] CCPA Do-Not-Sell
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 19:28:19 -0000

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 08:08:40PM -0400, Sebastian Zimmeck wrote:
> At the beginning of this year the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
> became effective. In addition to the rights of data access and deletion,
> this new privacy law gives consumers the right to opt out from the sale of
> personal information. A "sale" is understood broadly and likely covers, for
> example, a website or app disclosing location data or device identifiers to
> an ad network for purposes of monetization. Now, the most recent regulations
> to the CCPA
> <https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/privacy/ccpa-text-of-second-set-mod-031120.pdf?>
> published
> by the California Attorney General specify that automatic signals
> communicating a user's decision to opt out must be respected. Here is the
> relevant language:
> 
> "If a business collects personal information from consumers online, the
> business shall treat user-enabled global privacy controls, such as a
> browser plugin or privacy setting, device setting, or other mechanism, that
> communicate or signal the consumer’s choice to opt-out of the sale of their
> personal information as a valid request ... ."
> 
> I am interested in setting up a working group on such device controls. The
> Do-Not-Sell signal could be similar to a Do-Not-Track (DNT) signal.
> However, the difference is that recipients of the DNT signal were not
> required to comply with the signal. Rather, they only needed to *say*
> whether they would comply; per the California Online Privacy Protection Act
> (CalOPPA).
> 
> Also, the CCPA may have substantial impact beyond California as some
> companies, e.g., Microsoft, already made clear that they would apply the
> CCPA to all consumers in the US.
> 
> It would be great to get a discussion started ...

It's not really clear to me how much discussion is needed...
if one assumes that you're just considering a HTTP header field, then the
only technical question I can think of is whether there's intended to be
some level of richness of expressivity vs. a boolean signal "don't sell my
data".  At that point it is mostly a matter of writing down the expected
semantics (the header field registry requires only Expert Review for
allocations).

-Ben