W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > July to September 2018

RE: DNT Session at TPAC Plenary Day

From: <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:51:39 +0100
To: "'Rigo Wenning'" <rigo@w3.org>, <public-privacy@w3.org>
Cc: "'Lukasz Olejnik \(W3C\)'" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>, "'Jason Novak'" <jnovak@apple.com>, "'David \(Standards\) Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <033801d44506$6e21b490$4a651db0$@baycloud.com>

I emailed the EP rapporteur offering to explain not only how DNT could be implemented, but demonstrate that it already had, on thousands of commercial website, but never got a reply. Who could I email in the Council to make the same offer?


-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> 
Sent: 05 September 2018 10:17
To: public-privacy@w3.org
Cc: Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>; Jason Novak <jnovak@apple.com>; David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: DNT Session at TPAC Plenary Day

On Monday, September 3, 2018 6:47:56 PM CEST Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
> Sounds good. However, I believe the link should be more to ePrivacy 
> reg, rather than GDPR. However, ePrivacy is rather fluid now. Is there 
> someone with the working knowledge of GDPR + ePrivacy process as it 
> unfolds?

The Commission version is seen as too restrictive and too permissive and in general not of very high quality. Looks like the Commission wasn't keen to make the effort of creating something of high quality that will be massively changed by all parties involved. 

The LIBE and Plenary Parliament version contains all rules necessary to make DNT a consent mechanism. But the wording is neutral enough technology - wise, that it will also cover other systems (like the things developed by the SPECIAL project (specialprivacy.eu) or like extensions and future semantically rich versions of a DNT like protocol. The LIBE version had over 700 amendments to the Commission version and has improved the quality a lot. 

The Council (as was done for GDPR) is the blocking force. They haven't submitted anything so far and lend their ear more to the marketing industry. This is the biggest uncertainty for the moment. 

The parties will soon enter into the so called Trilog (COM/PAR/ COUN). In this Trilog, there can be significant changes. 

One of the issues is that the marketing industry claims very loudly that privacy handling technology like DNT is unimplementable, that nothing is on the market and that the world will fall apart if the LIBE version would make it. (All arguments known from the DNT

So if the technology industry wants to save the option of having privacy handling technologies with clear legal backing, they need to counter the marketing industry argumentation that DNT and the like is unimplementable (for economic or scientific reasons). This will considerably influence the debate. Every proof of concept implemented will change the landscape of the debate.
The SPECIAL project asserts it works but also researches new directions.

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2018 10:52:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:49:36 UTC