W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Another agenda item for Boston

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:57:09 +0100
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4c5ebbf2d5f87d736e09ebed3f4adac8@xs4all.nl>
Peter, Matthias,

Since this is an interesting API proposal, I support Mike in the 
request if we could at least spend some time on it. Please put it on the 
agenda, such that Mike can talk us through the design. The design has 
been proposed to the mailinglist a while ago.

mvg::Rob

Shane Wiley schreef op 2013-02-06 18:18:
> Mike,
> 
> While I agree that we should have some time to discuss the Global
> Considerations document and Rigo's efforts in that area, I don't
> believe it's worthwhile for the group to review a suggestion to align
> with a draft regulation that is already undergoing significant change
> since your original proposal (trying to hit a moving target
> prematurely). Let's save that conversation for mailing list and/or a
> call to sort through the details (especially as we see the draft
> regulation slow its rate of material change). Fair?
> 
> - Shane
> 
> FROM: Mike O'Neill [mailto:michael.oneill@btinternet.com]
>  SENT: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:13 AM
>  TO: Peter Swire; 'Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)'
>  CC: rob@blaeu.com; public-tracking@w3.org
>  SUBJECT: Another agenda item for Boston
> 
> Hi Peter, Matthias
> 
> Can we have an item on the agenda for Boston to discuss European
> compliance issues and the suggestions in the API I submitted on 29th
> (action-346 also attached to this).
> 
> I think this is very relevant to the compliance debate on
> de-identification in view of the requirement for an "automatic
> mechanism" for signalling consent for pseudonymous identifiers called
> for in the draft GDPR. It is also important to address issues arising
> from third-parties operating in different jurisdictions from the
> first-party data controller, which will occur often. This is
> especially important for us in Europe because the compliance spec. may
> have different descriptions of such things as permitted use and
> differentiate between first and third parties in a way incompatible
> with European data protection law.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 19:57:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC