+
@@ -594,8 +588,8 @@
## How This Document Fits In
-This document elaborates on the privacy principle
-from the [[[ethical-web-principles]]]: "Security and privacy are essential." While it focuses on privacy, this should
+This document elaborates on the privacy principle
+from the [[[Ethical-Web-Principles]]]: "Security and privacy are essential." While it focuses on privacy, this should
not be taken as an indication that privacy is always more important than other ethical web principles, and
this document doesn't address how to balance the different ethical web principles if they come into conflict.
@@ -674,7 +668,7 @@
information flows.
The web is for everyone ([[?For-Everyone]]). It should be "a platform that helps people and provides a
-net positive social benefit" ([[?ethical-web-principles]]). One of the ways in which the
+net positive social benefit" ([[?Ethical-Web-Principles]]). One of the ways in which the
web serves people is by seeking to protect them from surveillance and the types of manipulation that data can
enable.
@@ -715,7 +709,7 @@
There are always privacy principles at work. Some sets of principles may be more
permissive, but that does not make them neutral. All privacy principles have an impact on
[=people=] and we must therefore determine which principles best align with ethical web values in
-web [=contexts=] ([[?ethical-web-principles]], [[?Why-Privacy]]).
+web [=contexts=] ([[?Ethical-Web-Principles]], [[?Why-Privacy]]).
Information flows are information exchanged or processed by
[=actors=]. A person's privacy can be harmed both by their information flowing from them to
@@ -798,7 +792,7 @@
instance, the [=person=] may be objecting to [=processing=] based on legitimate interest,
withdrawing [=consent=] to specific [=purposes=], or requesting that their data not be sold or
shared.) The [=user=] is effectively delegating the expression of their [=opt-out=] to their
-[=user agent=], which helps rectify [=automation asymmetry=]. The [[[?gpc-spec]]] is a good
+[=user agent=], which helps rectify [=automation asymmetry=]. The [[[?GPC-Spec]]] is a good
example of a [=global opt-out=] mechanism.
Under this model, a [=global opt-out=] signal should not be understood as a decision that a
@@ -843,7 +837,7 @@
businesses operating in a competitive environment. They also do not consider cases in
which one [=actor=] may coerce other [=actors=] into facilitating its [=inappropriate=]
practices, as is often the case with dominant players in advertising or in content aggregation
-([[?Consent-Lackeys]], [[?CAT]]).
+([[?Consent-Lackeys]], [[?Content-Aggregation-Technology]]).
Reference to the [=FIPs=] survives to this day. They are often referenced as "transparency
and choice", which, in today's digital environment, is often an indication that
@@ -1114,10 +1108,10 @@
Once one is choosing between different designs at the Pareto frontier, the choice of which
privacy principles to prefer is complex and depends heavily on the details of each
particular situation. Note that people's privacy can also be in tension
-with non-privacy concerns. As discussed in the [[[ethical-web-principles]]], "it is important to
+with non-privacy concerns. As discussed in the [[[Ethical-Web-Principles]]], "it is important to
consider the context in which a particular technology is being applied, the expected
audience(s) for the technology, who the technology benefits and who it may disadvantage,
-and any power dynamics involved" ([[ethical-web-principles]]). Despite this complexity, there is a basic ground
+and any power dynamics involved" ([[Ethical-Web-Principles]]). Despite this complexity, there is a basic ground
rule to follow:
APIs that filter, summarize, or time-shift information available from
- [=non-ancillary APIs=], like the [[[event-timing]]] and IntersectionObserver. See
+ [=non-ancillary APIs=], like the [[[Event-Timing]]] and IntersectionObserver. See
[[[#information]]] for restrictions on how existing non-ancillary APIs can
be used to justify new ancillary APIs.