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

Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:15:20 -0400
Message-ID: <50880608.5060903@networkadvertising.org>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Is this the view of other Europeans participating in this working group?

On 10/24/12 10:39 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
>>> Actually, from a EU perspective this standard as a whole is unnecessary
>>> because most business practices, at least the one that are publicly
>>> known, in this field are in violation of EU-law already.
>> So why do we keep talking about it in terms of EU law? Why do we
>> continue to have proposals aimed at suiting EU requirements?
> Well, I am going to be offensive again and maybe even patronising, but
> the US legal context for privacy discussions is not quite up to par with
> the rest of the industrialised world. For all its defects, the European
> legal framework embodies a coherent framework of concepts on this
> subject matter. Which sadly the USA does not have. So, apart from my own
> geographical bias by virtue of being Dutch, other than in terms of
> consent it is difficult to discuss this in outside the terms of EU law.
> Not to mention that similar frameworks have been adopted by Canada,
> Australia, South-Africa, Japan, Korea and Brazil as well as that India
> is in the process of moving in a similar direction.
>
>   I will be
>> happy if we can once and for all determine that this
>>> Having a
>>> mechanism for consent in the form of DNT is much more significant in the
>>> US context than in the EU context. The fact that various EU parties are
>>> sitting at the table in this process is in itself a sign that the lack
>>> of appetite by the US to import EU concepts (unlike most other
>>> democracies on the planet) has been noticed in the EU.
>> Are you saying that EU participation in this forum is precisely for the
>> purpose of trying to impose EU concepts on US companies?
> No, it is an acknowledgement that EU law is not applicable in the USA
> and that merely leaning back basking in an ill-conceived dream of
> EU-superiority in this regard is not going to be helpful at all if large
> parts of the relevant industries are (for now) out of scope of EU law.
> Therefore it is still useful to participate in a self-regulatory
> approach, despite it being unnecessary in the EU-context.
>
>> But to my previous question, if the EU can impose these concepts
>> extra-territorially through regulation then why try to do it through
>> this DNT process?
> Well, why get to what you want by asking nicely if you can do it by
> holding a gun to someone's head? The former is rather more constructive,
> one would think.
>
> Regards,
>
>   Walter
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 15:15:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC