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

Re: 5.2.2 Policy representation

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 02:45:41 -0700
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: ifette@google.com, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A12664EB5F25477293982FD00EF170DF@gmail.com>
Please provide a plausible use case where a website would legitimately and lawfully make inconsistent privacy representations.


On Monday, May 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> Jonathan, 
> 
> it would be nice if you could explain how you imagine which policy will 
> prevail over which other policy in case of (unwanted but probable) conflict 
> and whether a policy can overwrite the compliance specification's semantics. 
> Because mainly, we would have 3 policy statements now: P3P, human readable 
> legalese and the compliance spec. All those are triggered if the user sends 
> DNT. What would be the meaning of those policies (other than the Compliance 
> Spec)
> 
> Rigo
> 
> On Saturday 05 May 2012 09:51:22 Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> > I also favor P3P RIP. If there does happen to be sufficient interest, I
> > suppose we might add a new field (e.g. "p3p") independent of the "policy"
> > field.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 09:46:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC