W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: PING - areas where contributions are needed

From: Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:02:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC1M5qrSubs62vwt3JJftEzd9LnVE42RQoOOo7XJ6cnFvG8EWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
2015-10-06 14:30 GMT+01:00 Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>:

> I think Nick would be the best positioned to engage in detail with the
> example you raise... I don't see a way to do transitive consent or
> transferrable consent that protects against what you are calling
> "consent laundering" unless there is some constraint imposed at time
> of consent giving (e.g., "it's ok/not ok to transfer my consent here
> to downstream parties").
>


Yes, this constrain might be considered. Instead of a catch-all phrase "I
agree".


> There is a pretty big divide between US and EU models for consent and
> legal theories... Frederik Z-B and Aleecia MacDonald just presented a
> net paper at TPRC entitled "Do Not Track for Europe" that nicely
> outlines the pretty stark differences that the DNT standard would need
> to support to be usable in the EU:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2588086




Interesting. So instead of forking DNT one might be want to ensure all is
set. The understanding and reasoning is that in order for the DNT
standard/tracking compliance be enforced and honored in practice, at some
point it will be necessary to engage regulatory bodies?

Cheers
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 23:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:49:31 UTC