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

I'll be sure to communicate to the PCMCP that the official position coming
from the General Counsel of the W3C is that they are stupidŠ (:




From:  <rigo@w3.org>
Date:  Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:25 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  Tracking WG <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>,
"Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Subject:  Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to
legal   requirements
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:28:48 +0000

> Oh, demonstrate that the user is in UK reminds me of the German suggestion to
> only allow porn on the internet after 10:00pm
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't blame the TPWG for every stupid law on the planet. I think ICO
> would be a much better addressee for this
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
>  
> 
> -- sent from mobile
> 
>  
> 
> On 26.09.12 20:01 Alan Chapell wrote:
> 
> On 9/26/12 1:50 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> >Alan, 
>> >
>> >you create, by definition, a scenario that works only with extended
>> >tracking. This is turned into a use case that has to be fulfilled
>> >even in the presence of DNT:1. "that User" is revealing to that
>> >respect.
> 
> To be clear - this is not something I've created or imagined. It is a real
> life scenario.
>> > 
>> >
>> >Now if a legal entity promised to some authority that it will serve
>> >an ad to "that User",
> 
> I'm not saying the legal entity promised to serve an ad to a User. I'm
> saying that the PCMCP required an advertiser to demonstrate that the User
> wasn't located in the UK or face fines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> >the legal counsel of that entity better has a
>> >good professional insurance. Secondly, if such legal/contractual
>> >obligation exists, service can only be provided to identified users.
>> >DNT:1 is that they don't want to be identified. The least thing one
>> >would expect is that the service uses the exception mechanism to
>> >explain what the heck is happening here and why.
>> >
>> >But this is certainly not something that we could let go as "minor
>> >collection/risk" permitted use without transforming the entire
>> >protocol into a futile exercise.
>> >
>> >Rigo
>> >
>> >On Wednesday 26 September 2012 12:02:03 Alan Chapell wrote:
>>>> >> >Prior to receiving a DNT:1 header the ad network collects data
>>>> >> >normally and can provide proof as usual. After having received a
>>>> >> >DNT:1 header, the ad network can provide proof that it has
>>>> >> >received a DNT:1 header and cannot provide proof as usual.
>>> >> 
>>> >> OK, and that's my point. In my hypo, the ad network will be in hot
>>> >> water with the PCMCP unless it is unable to demonstrate that
>>> >> pharma ads were served to that User and the circumstances under
>>> >> which they were served. As a result, the advertiser and/or ad
>>> >> agency will be fined. Are you ok with that outcome?
>>> >> 
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Now if you want to continue to do re-targeting and provide proof
>>>> >> >that you have successfully re-targeted this individual, I would
>>>> >> >guess that the required data collection and use goes a fair
>>>> >> >amount beyond what the user expects when sending you DNT:1 .
>>>> >> >Maybe you can also understand this DNT:1 as an opt out of the
>>>> >> >user of the targeting. Should permitted uses be stronger than
>>>> >> >such an opt out?
>>> >> I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The rationale behind
>>> >> permitted uses is that they continue even in the presence of a
>>> >> DNT signal.
> 
> 
> 
>