Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Alan -- there are only 2 types of consent potentially operative here. 
Opt-in and opt-out. So I don't think I'm raising some obscure 
jurisdictional quirk, but rather a pervasive feature of data protection 
laws.

My read of the EU situation is not the same as yours but regardless, if 
the EU ends up with an opt-out regime, then addressing facially valid 
DNT-1 defaults becomes all the more pressing.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/12/2012 3:13 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> Hi Tamir -
>
> I think that's a laudable goal. However, the standard should not be 
> looking to address every possible regulatory issue at the expense of 
> the core mission of the group -- which is to help define mechanisms 
> for expressing user preferences around Web tracking (as defined). That 
> core mission may fit really well into certain legal frameworks - and 
> fit less well in other frameworks. The uncertainty in certain 
> jurisdictions makes this a difficult proposition to say the least. 
> I've heard respected EU privacy experts state that -- of the member 
> states that have taken a public position on Section 5(3) of ePrivacy 
> -- half appear to be opt-in and half appear to be opt--out for most 
> cookies.  And the UK has arguably changed its stance on the cookie 
> issue several times since our group began its work -- and for a time 
> had one branch of government saying something vastly different from 
> another branch.
>
> I recognize that some in the group may be more optimistic regarding 
> the time it would take to harmonize this standard across multiple 
> jurisdictions. If that's the consensus of the group, so be it. If so, 
> we may want to more clearly state this in the group's charter.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
>
>
> From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca <mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca>>
> Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:13 PM
> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com 
> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>
> Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>, 
> <ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>>, Shane Wiley 
> <wileys@yahoo-inc.com <mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>, Jeffrey Chester 
> <jeff@democraticmedia.org <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>, Ninja 
> Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de 
> <mailto:nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org 
> <mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net 
> <mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net>>, David Singer <singer@apple.com 
> <mailto:singer@apple.com>>, "public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)" <public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Would it not be in the interests of all if this standard were able to 
> take into account as many regulatory problems for online trackers as 
> possible?
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> On 6/11/2012 11:41 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> It seems to me that the group is spending a fair amount of time 
>> focusing on how DNT will provide a panacea to the legal uncertainty 
>> in the EU and now Canada. I'm not sure its a productive road for this 
>> group to be going down. DNT is unlikely to be the sole path to 
>> compliance in either the EU or Canada.