>This is an aspirational statement and not a requirement of DTP, so it's problematic from a public perception standpoint to make the claim that DTP provides the user with more control of their data when the control very much remains at the mercy of the data controller. Indeed, this project directly facilitates the opportunity for more data controllers to obtain copies of the subject's data.

I don't really disagree with what you, but I interpret things differently:

Without DTP, if you ask a data controller to delete your data you have to trust that they do. There is very little way to verify that the deletion actually happened, you more or less need to rely on the reputation of the company. Nowadays they all should have published retention statements which state their deletion practices in more details, so that helps some, and allow for some recourse if in fact they aren't following it. But in general for the average user, it comes down mostly to trust.

With DTP, nothing is worse. But users now can get their data into a new service easier.

If DTP had move semantics you still have the same problem as above, it mostly comes down to trust.

It is true that after a copy there are now two copies of the data, which isn't ideal in terms of data minimization. But because of the reasons I outline previously, I think it is important to keep deletion as a separate action from copy. I do think that after a copy the option to delete the data should be presented to the user prominently to make that as easy as possible if that is what they want to do.

So DTP isn't trying to solve every problem, but my take is that it makes some things better without making anything else significantly worse, so it's a net win.

> Can you clarify whether you are saying that the DTP Project will honor takedown requests from parties targeted by DTP tooling?

DTP doesn't really store data, so I don't think it is scope for a traditional takedown request. But I think more to the spirit of the question, yes if a service doesn't want to grant a DTP host a API key, or revoked an API, we wouldn't condone trying to work around that.

(One super detailed note, DTP is just an open source project, and doesn't operate any production code. A Hosting Entity can download/run the code. A Hosting Entity could be a company letting users transfer data in or out, or a user running DTP locally. Each Hosting Entity is responsible for acquiring API keys for all the services they want to interact with; including agreeing to and complying with any restrictions that that service might impose for access to their API.)

> Can you explain the business drivers that incentivize these companies to provide parity between their import and export capabilities? Does the DTP Project require parity between these capabilities?

This is a little bit of a bet on our part. I think Google has demonstrated, through its almost decade long investment in Takeout, that giving users more control over their data leads to greater user trust and that is good for business.

As for requiring parity, we cover this a bit in the white paper, but as you say, we recognize the reciprocity is key, and we need to incentive services to invest equally in import and export otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

Right now the stance we are taking is the reciprocity is strongly encouraged and we will be collection stats/metrics to try to measure it so we can name and shame folks that aren't following that. We hope that by providing transparency around different service's practices in this area will allow users to make informed decisions about where to store their data.

An interesting thought experiment in this area is that if a user wants to transfer data from service A to service B, but service B doesn't allow export back out, what should service A do? Ideally you force service B to support export, but on the other hand the user should be in control, and who is service A to say no. Its almost putting the good of an individual user against the good of the ecosystem.

We are hoping that as the project, and the large portability ecosystem, evolves there emerges some kind of neutral governance model that can help mediate some of these issues. It is problematic for service A to decide that question, but a neutral group representing the interests of users will have more legitimacy in making these tough questions.