W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Agenda for 2012-02-01 call (V02: added more incoming issues with text)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:07:23 +0100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-ID: <1530786.pckPp0Phbb@hegel>
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 09:50:49 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > no response header, no consent recording(legally). It's as simple as
> > that. And  P3P did not have a response header as the protocol was just
> > 180 degree opposite of the DNT protocol.
> 
> I had three separate discussions with EU and UK regulators.  None of them
> suggested that a response header is necessary.  What is necessary is
> specific and prior consent.

See, if you go with a timewarp machine to them and ask them about the use of 
timewarp machines to create consent, they would still tell you "what is 
necessary is specific and prior consent". I would rather follow Rob who 
actually knows what a timewarp machine is. :)
> 
> > Given that there will be no consent-recording, a SHOULD may be enough.
> > But the  Specification MUST give clear information about why the
> > response header is needed to avoid the misunderstanding above.
> 
> If you can write that up as a paragraph with a link to the applicable law,
> then that would be great.

Ok, I would suggest to open an issue on this as this needs agreement from Rob 
and Ninja to get us better chances for later endorsement of our tool. What do 
you think? I'll provide that text once the issue is created. 

Would that work for you?

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:07:50 UTC

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