Re: PING - areas where contributions are needed

>> 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?

Yes, but if soft-law (through self regulation) is enforced in accordance 
with the law, regulatory bodies would not have to step in IMHO. In the 
EU the key point is that there (currently) remains a gap between the W3C 
DNT-compliance spec and what is required by the EU legal privacy and 
data protection framework.

See also: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2015Oct/att-0003/20151001_Ares_2015_4048580_W3C_compliance.pdf

Rob

Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) schreef op 2015-10-10 01:02:
> 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 Saturday, 10 October 2015 08:50:14 UTC