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

Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to legal requirements

From: Dobbs, Brooks <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 20:25:19 +0000
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
CC: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B40EB3A3384EB4CB812241DDDC41D8705312C@KBMEXMBXPR01.kbm1.loc>
Rigo,

Another example that just sprung to mind along Alan's line of thinking is
pharmaceuticals.  I know pharmaceutical advertisers who may store both the
IP address of the adserving serving event and the referring URL (site on
which the ad appeared) to comply with requirements that they not market
certain regulated products outside of certain geographical confines.

Hypothetical for instance - if you aren't allowed to market Viagra
directly to consumers in the US, but are allowed in Canada and Mexico you
want your log files to show IP addresses largely "known" to be in legally
allowable jurisdictions (Canada and Mexico) and/or to websites with
appropriate country codes.

-Brooks



-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email  including attachments  may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 10/1/12 12:03 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>On Monday 01 October 2012 10:59:06 Alan Chapell wrote:
>> Yes. That makes sense. I'm not looking for exemptions to swallow
>> the rule.
>
>Alan, 
>
>that's my fear. Having been involved in Internet filtering
>discussions for a long time, I can tell you that the request from
>PCMCP is not really reasonable for a large variety of reasons.
>Therefore I said, it is not sufficient to argue only in the TPWG.
>Because you could probably find some rule from a less democratic
>country that will require a total filter and identification. Would
>we then just say "we honor dnt" and come through the backdoor via
>permitted use and track everything for good? If this effort is not
>only about advertisement, this is your use case. We get into choppy
>waters here. While law can and should override, not every code of
>conduct should trump the TPC IMHO. I see that the industry wants to
>just get rid of the problem. But I don't believe we can do so easily
>without damaging our overall effort. Maybe the 6 weeks window offers
>an escape line.
>
>Rigo
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 20:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:35 UTC