Re: Disavowing Legal Liability

Thank you for you comments.

Lorrie Cantor writes:
>>The P3P specification makes it quite clear
that compact policies cannot be used in cases where
mandatory extensions have been added to P3P. An extension
that essentially nullifies a P3P statement, is clearly mandatory.<<

This rule is evidence of how unfair the P3P state of affairs is to
corporations.  If a corporation needs to add an extension in order to make
itself clear, then the Specification says it cannot use compact policies. 
Yet if it cannot use compact policies, then IE 6 will block or impede
certain cookies.  

Corporations are faced with a Catch-22.  They would be fools to accept it.

The solution I propose (http://www.disavowp3p.com) is for the corporations
to deny the legitimacy of the Specification.  Effectively, the corporation
using my idea declares that the Specification has no authority over the
corporation.

--Ben

Benjamin Wright
Attorney and Founding Author, 
   The  Law of Electronic Commerce
Dallas, Texas
tel 214-403-6642
ben_wright@compuserve.com
http://wright.safeshopper.com

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 10:55:40 UTC