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

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

From: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:26:19 -0800
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Haakon Bratsberg <haakonfb@opera.com>, "public-tracking-international@w3.org" <public-tracking-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D570FD14-4FB1-43F0-AB6C-6FB9F0E5B0B2@adobe.com>
Hi Rigo

I'll try explaining my stance again, but I'm afraid I'm not being clear enough. Here is where I see the disconnect. You write "There is a provision 
in the regulation that allows DNT to be the thing that allows for 
consent without window shades."

My understanding is that the amendments to the proposed regulation allows for a data protection board to determine whether commonly accepted standards meet compliance with the law. 

Do you expect the data protection board to approve DNT as currently drafted (which creates a distinction between first and third party use)?

I don't. Because I don't, I struggle to see how DNT (as currently being discussed in the WG) will get rid of the window shades. 

If the data protection board says that DNT could meet legal compliance but only if all websites respond to the DNT header as though they are a third party, then I'm saying that global companies will likely say 'thanks, but then I'll just stick to my window shade because I can't change my website to treat myself as a third party'.

I hope that explains my worry better. I'm afraid that the data protection board won't 'approve' DNT in a way that makes it practical for global companies. 

What am I missing here?  What do you see the board approving?  Sorry if I'm missing something obvious or am being dense. But, I'm struggling to see DNT being enough to satisfy all EU regulators' desires without it requiring websites to fundamentally change how it handles (defines) DNT for EU websites.  Once we require a different DNT implementation for websites for the EU, I believe implementing window shades is easier/cheaper than creating different processes for DNT. 

Vinay

Sent from my phone

On Mar 6, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> Vinay, 
> 
> On Wednesday 06 March 2013 09:09:58 Vinay Goel wrote:
>> In the EU example, that means honoring DNT as it relates to interest
>> based cross-site advertising and then using a window shade/some other
>> consent mechanism for use cases covered by law but not by DNT.
> 
> 1/ Window shades are sooo ugly!! Designers fight over 10x10 pixels and 
> here we have those ugly banners? Nobody wants that, not even the most 
> fundamentalist DPA or Privacy activists. Do we want to contribute to 
> such a politics and technological accident/crash? Or can we do better?
> 
> 2/ If you do window shades, you don't need to do DNT anymore. If you do 
> both, you create a mess as you don't know what the relation of both are. 
> Does a DNT opt-out apply even though somebody clicked past a window 
> shade saying the opposite?
> 
> 3/ Window shades may buy you something under the current regime in the 
> UK. I doubt they will buy you anything on the continent and once the 
> regulation is in place. I may get a knife in my back from DPAs here, but 
> I don't want to be responsible for having ugly (mostly meaningless 
> purely bureaucratic) window shades plastered all over web sites in 
> Europe. 
> 
> 4/ There will be some need for interaction, but this should be reduced 
> to the relevant things. I believe DNT is the right tool to achieve that 
> for the Web. I doubt, this will work beyond the Web. 
> 
>> I don't think DNT will get rid of those ugly window shades for global
>> companies unless the laws change. And understanding that changing the
>> laws is highly unlikely, I think the window shades are going to stay
>> (for global companies).
> 
> I think Walter tried already to explain it to you. There is a provision 
> in the regulation that allows DNT to be the thing that allows for 
> consent without window shades. So the fatality (without changing the 
> law) does not exist. The ePrivacy Directive is already there to help us 
> with Whereas 66. Years of preparatory work of many technologists can 
> become fruitful. By excluding DNT as a consent mechanism (and consent 
> has many shades of gray), you exclude the solution. But then, DNT:0 has 
> no meaning for a global company as they do not implement it. 
> 
> Nobody said it is easy. Kimon said it is complex. But I believe we can 
> make it.
> 
> Confronted with window shades for first parties and DNT for third 
> parties, I will rather surf with third parties in the future. :)
> 
> --Rigo
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 00:28:33 UTC

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