In the case where UMA might be used for something other than personal data, would it make sense to have a totally different CommonAccord framework with RO = some other kind of Principal? I still have this idea that some UMA technical framework somewhere will find it valuable to build in a claims-based payment system.Oh, and…On 10 Oct 2015, at 8:46 AM, Neiditz, Jon <JNeiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:RO = Data Subject
RS = Controller, Processor AND Subprocessor (AKA Exporter/Importer)
AS = NOBODY yet, which is why the Data Subject’s rights are all third party beneficiary rights. But an AS would authorize sharing with RS’s offering model clauses or modifications thereto. Which is why UMA can now extend EU privacy to people around the world (a lot of bridges, if that was what Scott meant when I was passed out).
D’Accord?
Jon Neiditz
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341
jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile | vCard
<image005.png> <image006.png>