- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:09:55 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 10/11/12 8:44 PM, Alan Chapell wrote: > This speaks less to the harm issue, and more towards the benefits of > requiring the browsers to "give() users complete information" and very > clearly describe what DNT means. Do you agree? Apologies for missing this clear and direct question. I would agree that the paper indeed underlines the need for a) disclosure of industry practices, both in general and for each individual user(*) and b) having a credible mechanism for users to have meaningful control over the data gathered. I would disagree that this paper does not provide insights to the social harms of tracking, even if I were to agree that the burden of proof for harm or a lack thereof is not solely on industry. (*) it should be noted that under EU law processing of personal data creates the obligation to honour data subject's requests on both the data being processed and the algorithms applied. It therefore is baffling that industry has not disclosed its practices so far. Regards, Walter
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 19:10:23 UTC