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 18:12:10 -0400
Message-ID: <508867BA.3080903@networkadvertising.org>
To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
CC: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Kimon,

I would not suggest that MRC is or should be relevant in Europe. My 
questions to other Europeans in the group is whether they share Walter's 
position, quoted below, regarding U.S. law and the goals for the DNT 
standard.

-David

On 10/24/12 11:32 AM, Kimon Zorbas wrote:
> David,
>
> I am struggling to understand why MRC should be relevant in Europe? (I 
> am a bit lost in this debate  it seems to me that MRC certifies 
> products to conduct measurement - in the US). If companies operate in 
> Europe, they need to comply with our strict laws.
>
> Audience measurement in Europe is to my knowledge conducted via 
> anonymous data. Safe Harbor wouldn't apply to such data. If audience 
> data is transferred to outside the EEA (and adequate countries), then 
> there is no issue (with anonymous data sets). If personal data is 
> collected, then you could benefit of the Safe Harbor regime as a US 
> based company. Not sure that has anything to do with MRC (being only a 
> certification body, if I understand correctly).
>
> Kind regards,
> Kimon
>
> From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
> Date: Wednesday 24 October 2012 17:15
> To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl 
> <mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>, "public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday 24 October 2012 17:15
>
> 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 22:12:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC