VS>> > - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea.
Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more."
The only person who can be trusted to honor consent is the end user.
JK>> might *consult* my consent - including (in a particular order):
My organisation, my ISP, a legitimate mass mailer, the courts.
VS>The needs of the courts to determine your consent have nothing to do
with network protocols, the IETF, or the IRTF. That extreme case
illustrates some problems with the other cases.
Sorry, what? Again the non sequitur. You imply consent expression is
useless.
I point out 4 examples of entities who might consult it. The needs of *any*
entity to consult consent are *clearly* a consideration in the formulation
of a consent expression framework (be it expressed through a network
protocol,
proposed through the IETF, the IRTF or written on a matchbook).
And why (I know I shouldn't bite) a "bad idea"?
It's a bad idea because saying "ok, you're ok but no thanks" will get
you more spam. Any expression sent to almost any mass mailer, no
matter how legitimate, is likely to be "checked," as in "6 months
(weeks, days, or hours) ago you said you didn't want to hear everything
from us. surely you've changed your mind?"
Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again.
Is there some problem with this?
I can only assume that you see problems (unspecified) with some
particular mechanism (unspecified) of consent expression - and then
make the logical false step which leads you to conclude that
consent expression in general must have those flaws.
This is bad reasoning, and makes for bad argument.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg