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 18:14:22 -0400
Message-ID: <5088683E.5060306@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>
Rob, Rigo, Ninja, what are your thoughts?

On 10/24/12 6:12 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
> 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 22:14:52 UTC

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