Re: DNT Concerns

Guys,
For the record and doing justice to the strictest data protection authorities:
There's certainly not an opt-in in Europe for all cookies and I would argue not even an explicit consent in the majority of EU and EEA countries.

And I reiterate my offer to give a brief presentation at the next WG meeting on European privacy law to demystify EU privacy laws.

Kind regards,
Kimon

Kimon Zorbas
Vice President IAB Europe

IAB Europe - The Egg –Rue Barastraat 175 –1070 Brussels - Belgium
Phone +32 (0)2 5265 568
Mob +32 494 34 91 68
Fax +32 2 526 55 60
vp@iabeurope.eu
Twitter: @kimon_zorbas

www.iabeurope.eu and www.interactcongress. eu

----- Reply message -----
From: "Alan Chapell" <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: DNT Concerns
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 6:00 pm



Colleagues – my thoughts on some of the major issues I see with this initiative.

  *   No consensus on the harms we're trying to address, or the problems we're trying to solve.

  *   Disproportionate impact of DNT on small to mid–tier players when compared to larger players. Similar issue with third parties in comparison to first parties.

  *   Few (if any) requirements on UA's to disclose DNT functionality completely and accurately or provide consumers with the ability to make informed, granular choices about DNT, exceptions, etc.  Put another way, four companies that own browsers have too much power and control over the implementation of DNT that impacts the entire ecosystem and is outside the scope of the TPWG.

  *   Disparate regulatory environments (particularly EU vs. U.S.) make a one size fits all approach problematic. (E.g., ePrivacy focuses on opt-in model in some places, and covers all cookies – which is different than the approach in other parts of the world. All due respect to the talents of Rigo and the global considerations initiatives — in order to be successful, the global considerations effort requires EU regulators and browsers to do things that they've already told the group they are unwilling to do.)

  *   Exhaustion / Resource issues – We have huge issues outstanding, with no discernible end in site. How much ,more time and energy should be placed into this process within the W3C? At risk of being labeled the gloomy Gus of the WG, I'm beginning to wonder if continuing this effort within the W3C will be an effective use of time and resources. I don't think I'm alone here.

Alan