W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-international@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Agenda: Global considerations F2F meeting 11-12 Berlin

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:46:47 -0500
Message-ID: <512D6587.5090901@networkadvertising.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:40:17 UTC