W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations; Issue-5 Definition of Tracking

From: Haakon Bratsberg <haakon.bratsberg@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:11:46 +0100
Cc: Ninja Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <04724F97-CDCC-4F9E-B652-781CE13B3065@opera.com>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 2.  With only 14 of 27 member states having transposed or suggest current laws already cover the amended ePrivacy Directive (was required by May 25th 2011 by law), I believe it's far too early to draw upon that perspective in the DNT discussion.  I'm at the IAPP EU event and there is considerable disagreement even across DPAs as to the true intentions of the ePrivacy Directive and how this should be managed in practice with users (data subjects).  The ePrivacy Directive does not require consent for "legitimate" cookie use to deliver a service and most DPAs I've spoken to have felt this covers 1st party cookie use and that only "3rd party advertising cookies" are the true target of the ePrivacy Directive.  Do you agree with this perspective?  What is the formal stance of your country?

This reflects my impression as well, but details differ between member states. 

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 21:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:42 UTC