Once the leading technical standards body for the open web, the W3C has since lost its grip over foundational technologies to both the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG). Without control over the standards that govern the HTTP protocol, HTML5, or JavaScript, the organization has now latched on to privacy in a fight for relevance.
The W3C’s most recent Privacy Principles statement strays far from acceptable publications from a neutral technical standards body. Privacy is a non-price factor of competition. It is for organisations to decide on the level of privacy they offer and people on the what they prefer. According to the W3C’s own antitrust and competition policy participants must not be involved in “encouraging or forcing others to modify a business relationship with third parties”. Yet that is exactly what W3C has done by publishing a document that mirrors the priorities of Big Tech platforms.
Fewer than 3% of the W3C membership supported the Privacy Principles publication as a statement. The silent majority recognize privacy is a topic W3C should stay away from. The fact none of the authors are qualified legal or policy experts is almost irrelevant to whether the W3C should be focused on policies that select winners and losers. Yet the W3C CEO and recently appointed Privacy Lead (who previously worked at two of the giant AdTech companies facing the largest privacy violation fines) both decided publishing a document that breaches their own antitrust policy was such a significant achievement it was worthy of high profile blog posts.
The DOJ has described privacy as being used like an “elastic shield” by Apple. In circumstances where there is so little member support it raises questions about the wisdom of W3C taking such a high profile position on a matter that is regarded as contentious in current antitrust litigation.
MOW, as a W3C member, formally objected to the W3C Privacy Principles. We have instead published a Data Governance position we feel is more helpful to all participants of the digital economy. We are also not a technical standards body, so not bound by the same rules as W3C.
We respect the W3C’s past efforts that once helped to make the web open, accessible, and interoperable. And it is because of this legacy that we take their statement on privacy so seriously, including in our mission the goal of bringing regulation to technical standards bodies and a modern Open Web such that the W3C are restricted to the role of an important neutral technical standards and cease straying into the realms of ideology.
Unfortunately, their Privacy Principles fail on many levels. It guides the market toward specific technical and policy outcomes yet disclaims any responsibility for such anti-competitive positions by asserting that companies remain free to choose their own path. In making such statements W3C helps Big Tech condition the environment to one where one can’t criticize for fear of being seen as in some way “anti-privacy”. This contradiction erodes trust and fails to offer the clarity or neutrality required of a legitimate technical standards body.
Furthermore, the document itself includes a number of conflicting statements that only serve to confuse and mislead the reader. For example, “data” and “personal data” are used interchangeably; sensational, biased language conflates collection and communication of any data with “surveillance”; and there are instances whereby browser-based features are encouraged over the preferences of web property owners to use other options in the market.
These issues are not to be taken lightly. The W3C has shown itself to prioritize the marketing of privacy over the hard work of establishing clarity, maintaining neutrality, and building genuine consensus from all stakeholders around such an important component of the open web. Privacy is too important for posturing. It requires technical rigor, product design so people can trust the choices they make, legal expertise, and stakeholder balance. If the W3C can’t uphold those principles, the responsibility must move elsewhere.