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

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

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:50:08 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W1992E0DDC4147B1019A87BBAA810@phx.gbl>
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>

Give Rigo a break.   He can see right through you, tough.

> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:33:26 -0400
> From: david@networkadvertising.org
...
> On 9/27/12 4:29 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> > In some countries, IP addresses are considered personal data. And
> > the music industry's success in the pursuit of file sharing
> > youngsters via recording of IP addresses rather proofs them right.
> >
> > Collecting personal data under DNT:1 for long term storage, tracking
> > and positive/negative discrimination is against all goals  this
> > effort started with. A permitted use would go directly against the
> > overall stated goals. This will be hard to explain to the outside
> > world.
> I think this thread has been about retaining the data for financial 
> reporting purposes. I don't think anyone claimed that IP addresses 
> retained for those purposes should be available also for 
> positive/negative discrimination.
>
> > Now if some country has a law requiring long time storage of IP
> > addresses for targeting and filtering of communications, this is
> > covered by our provision "law prevails" and does not need a
> > permitted use. If it is a contractual obligation, this obligation
> > can't be fulfilled in the DNT:1 mode. A provision should be added to
> > that contract. Or an exception should be triggered. But I don't see
> > any reason for a permitted use here. I also have some slight doubts
> > whether the requirements of PCMCP are in line with EU data
> > protection rules, but I haven't looked deeply into their rules
> > either.
> I think the point is that there are legitimate reasons outside of 
> statutory or regulatory requirements that this data may need to be 
> retained. And I think those of us coming from the business side have 
> been very willing to work on reasonable retention and use limits that 
> can still accommodate those reasons.
> 
> There's now been a lot of explanation from people in the online 
> advertising business about the needs to retain certain data for 
> financial reporting reasons. It seems we're all agreed that online 
> advertising should not be prohibited under DNT, so it follows that 
> certain business needs around online advertising must be allowed for.

Show us why the contact terms can not be amended if they do not
already have exemptions to covert unreliable data?

Show us why an exemption for this 'business need' is necessary for
online advertising?

Show us why you can't get much of this information from the websites
that place the ads?

> So  what harms stem from accommodating these business needs? Can you provide 
> real examples of why the use of such data for financial reporting is a 
> problem? Perhaps if we really understood specific cases you are 
> concerned about, it would help us get on the same page about appropriate 
> limitations.

Some users do not want to be covertly tracked even for the purpose of
allowing some online businesses to meet their own concocted contractual
terms.

I would remind you that the charter of this group is "to improve user
privacy
			and user control ...".  Unless this exemption is a shop stopper for
a very significant segment of online business then it would seem to have
little place in this group.

cheers
Fred

 		 	   		  
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2012 01:50:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC