[Dcpr] Request for Comments - Due Diligence Recommendations

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 4/11/2014 5:01 am, LB at lucabelli.net wrote:
> Please find below and in attachment, the DRAFT Due Diligence
> Recommendations. You are all encouraged to share your comments on this
> draft via our mailing-list or modifying the draft using this pad
> (_https://pad.lqdn.fr/p/DC_PR_Due_Diligence_Recommendations_).
> The draft will be open for comments until 30 November. A second draft
> will be developed compiling your comments and will be shared for a
> second comment-period on 15 December 2014.

Where you speak of the provider's responsibility to encrypt personal
data, it should be that the decryption key is retained by the user,
except where the provider has to hold the decryption key in order to
provide the service and the user provides informed consent.

Also, EFF will find it difficult to support paragraph 3.1 which states
"platforms are encouraged to restrict ... other kinds of undesirable
content".  At least, this should be "platforms may restrict" or (as it
is worded later) "can legitimately restrict", but not encouraging them
to do so.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.platformresponsibility.info/archive/dcpr/attachments/20141124/b771c83b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.platformresponsibility.info/archive/dcpr/attachments/20141124/b771c83b/attachment.pgp>