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

Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 21:44:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA977A0.5000601@blaeu.com>
To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
CC: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
Kimon,

Let me make a pro-aktive step here. Recently we touched upon 
mod_cookietrack 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0040.html). 
One of the things that struck me, is that with a small modification of 
mod_usertrack, the author was able to tackle an interesting point: 
(https://github.com/jib/mod_cookietrack/blob/master/DOCUMENTATION)

"mod_usertrack does not set the cookie on the incoming request, only on 
the outgoing request. This means your application doesn't know  what 
UUID to use for the first visit of a user."

Is this server-side behavior in any way useful for the explicit-explicit 
exception pairs?

Rob

On 8-5-2012 21:17, Mike Zaneis wrote:
> I'm sorry but I object to this line of advocacy and cajoling by the Article 29 Work Group. The W3C Working Group's mission is not to create an EU compliance Mechanism, if that happens to occur as part of our work then so be it, but it is nowhere in our charter and we should not be continually pressured to work towards that end.
>
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP&  General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
>
> On May 8, 2012, at 2:35 PM, "Rob van Eijk"<rob@blaeu.com>  wrote:
>
>> Well,
>>
>> At least one thing is for sure: tracking cookies need prior consent of the user. There is no uncertainty about that. There is some debate on a possibly very limited list of functional cookies.
>>
>> One of the latest public documents on the status of the implementation is here ( disclaimer: I haven't checked it in detail):
>> http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Documents/Implementation_ePrivacy_Directive-Apr2012.pdf
>>
>> There is a catch-22 here, because law makers are looking closely to the outcome of W3C DNT process. Some find it very hopefull, some think it will not lead to compliance.
>>
>> So I encourage the group to try to get the TPE out of the impasse. Please tell me, if DNT is not going to have any additional value in comparison to the current opt-out systems. Because if DNT will not be able to offer a rich granular dialog 'under the hood' of the browser, DNT is not going to have the outcome many of us have been hoping for.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On 8-5-2012 0:42, Kimon Zorbas wrote:
>>> That leaves us all (except for some lawyers) with frustration and uncertainty how the law will be enforced.
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:45:33 UTC

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