Re: DNT Concerns

Thanks Walter. The regulatory situation you describe below is very
different from that of other jurisdictions - including the U.S. I believe
this makes a one size fits all approach to the creation of a DNT
compliance document problematic.





On 12/5/12 7:12 PM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 12/6/12 12:07 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>
>> What I should have written is:
>> 
>> "ePrivacy focuses on opt-in model in some places (e.g., Netherlands),
>> and covers most types of cookies (1st as well as 3rd party) including
>> analytics, oba, ad serving optimization. This approach is different than
>> the approach in other parts of the world."
>> 
>> Is that better?
>
>I wished you were right. You could write:
>
>"The ePrivacy Directive focuses on a consent model on cookies (which in
>some places has been implemented as explicit opt-in) and covers
>non-essential cookies, including analytics, OBA and ad serving
>optimisation. The ePrivacy Directive is silent on tracking, but is a lex
>specialis on the lex generalis of the Data Protection Directive, the
>latter encompassing an approach which is followed by most industrialised
>democracies except the USA. Most common interpretations of the DPD
>assume a consent requirement, at least for tracking across multiple
>parties."
>
>Regards,
>
> Walter
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 12:09:00 UTC