- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:46:47 -0500
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: Haakon Bratsberg <haakonfb@opera.com>, public-tracking-international@w3.org
On 2/26/13 9:41 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > David, > > On Monday 25 February 2013 15:13:40 David Wainberg wrote: > > > in a regulated market like in France, there is a general prohibition of > processing personal data unless you have a legal justification. In the > absence of a DNT signal, you have certain restrictions. Receiving DNT:1 > just reinforces those restrictions. The restrictions may go even beyond > what DNT:1 says, as local law will prevail. What do you mean that it reinforces the restrictions? > > So if DNT:0 means the absence of DNT:1, sending DNT:0 has no meaning and > thus the legal restrictions remain in place. So whether you are sending > DNT:1 or DNT:0, you will always be in the mode with restrictions. So you're saying DNT:1 is pointless in the EU, so DNT:0 is an entirely new, EU-specific policy with semantics independent of the TCS we've been working on? > > > If we define DNT:0 as "you can collect whatever you feel like" there is > another legal limitation kicking in. This is like going into a shop and > saying: "I buy". The sales person will ask "buy what"? And you'll > stubbornly keep on saying "I buy". The "I buy" simple has no object. Sorry for being thick, but I'm still not getting it. With the exceptions API that will generate DNT:0 signals, isn't it up to the company to specify the scope of the consent?
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 01:47:22 UTC