The Independent Enforcement Entity (IEE) is likely to receive a large number of challenges of FPS validity. Some will be duplicates or invalid, but many will require some work by the IEE.

Automation-friendly challenges. Examples include cases where the text of a privacy policy does not match across set members, or the content of industry-standard files is inconsistent with FPS membership criteria. These could be handled once, manually, and then used to improve the IEE's crawler and validator process. (See FPS members must allow technical verification #65)
Challenges requiring fast, basic human checks. Most common example would be lack of user-obvious set membership, based on site design and copy. In these cases the IEE could run an online quiz for a panel of users and ask them to identify sites with an FPS in common, then reject an FPS where too many users fail. Would require some human interaction, but if the IEE sets up a decent quiz tool, a few IEE employees could process many challenges.
Challenges requiring checks with predictable delays. For example, if a challenge claims that two sites do not share controllership, the IEE could automatically make a test account on one site, carry out some kind of opt out (such as an email preference or objection to processing) and then see if it is reflected on the other site. Delays are likely, and allowed for by all the regulations I'm aware of, but the scope of the work is predictable.
Challenges requiring specialized expertise. This is where language on ownership and corporate governance in FPS membership standards could expand the work of the IEE in an unpredictable way. (Links: Replace owner/controller language with simpler language on controller (and define it) #56 (comment))

Discuss FPS membership standards #76

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions