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

Re: transitivity of DNT exceptions

From: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:05:28 +0000
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBD83A2D.2BBD0%vp@iabeurope.eu>
Rigo,

I am not sure my mission is to interpret Article 29 WG opinions;)

Joking aside, I think in the next f2f meeting in Seattle, we need an open discussion about this issue with European law. If W3C wants two create something specifically for Europe, let's look into it. But I'm happy to explain to US participants, how European legislation works and that what comes from Brussels is not a law that is applicable 1:1 in all 27 EU Member States (and also Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, EEA countries).

So I'm afraid there is no silver bullet to create a technical solution that would be THE compliance tool across the 30 countries we look at. Let aside that US folks might not feel enthusiastically if we take over the discussions here, trying to fix the legislative situation.

What shall I respond to the question what Art. 29 WG requires? They are not a regulator and and only a body that issues (legally non-binding) decisions. Sometimes those are followed by the national authorities, sometimes not. That demonstrates the problem.

Maybe the Commission might have shared more information with you / other participants in meetings  if so, might be interesting to hearing.

Kind regards,
Kimon


From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>
Organization: W3C
Date: Tuesday 15 May 2012 00:17
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Cc: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: transitivity of DNT exceptions

On Monday 14 May 2012 15:37:44 Kimon Zorbas wrote:
In other words, once consented to an ad-network cookie, Art. 29 WG accepts
that subsequently data collected across sites can be used by this
ad-network. So the proposal goes further than Art. 29 and I have serious
concerns with this approach.

Kimon, IMHO you're describing what Shane calls a web-wide exception. Can you
explain in how far very concrete Matthias' proposal goes beyond what the
Art. 29 requires? Because you're exactly here to tell us :) I don't think
any kind of further restrictions are intended, not even from Rob.

Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:06:11 UTC

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