Re: Doodle poll for meeting, please respond ASAP & DNT:0 action-346 issue-189

On 1/12/13 9:16 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Don’t you believe it’s a bit premature to integrate elements of an
> unofficial version of the Data Protection Regulation into the
> de-identification discussion?  There is still considerable time (in
> parliamentary terms) for the draft regulation to undergo significant
> changes prior to voting.

Dear Shane,

I would concur that it is somewhat premature to discuss the fluctuating
texts of the DPR right now. The long standing interpretation of the DPD
by the Article 29 Working Party is that pseudonymous data is personal
data. Moreover, the consensus in Europe seems to be that tracking across
domains is stretching the legitimate interest as a valid ground for
processing of such personal data way beyond the legislative intent for
'legitimate interest' as valid ground for processing.

Lastly, the proposal by Jan Albrecht still wouldn't be a 'get out of
jail free' card for what I understand (without knowing what industry
practices actually are) is commonly done in the behavioural advertising
world. So it still wouldn't be terribly helpful for defining DNT:0,
especially since it clearly states that it can only be used within a
specific context, which in case of tracking almost never is the case.

Civil Society isn't too keen on introducing a third category of data at
all. We firmly believe data is personal or it is anonymous. Pseudonymity
tends to turn out to be personal in the not-even-so-long run.

So yes, let's stick to the current legislative frameworks. The future of
the DPR is too uncertain right now to take it into account too much.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Sunday, 13 January 2013 19:39:10 UTC