RE: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)


I disagree and would reference recent presentations by Brill (IAPP 2011 - DC) and Leibowitz (DAA Partnering on DNT) that feel appropriate use limitations and hardening (persistence) of a user's opt-out choice are the goal.

- Shane

From: Jeffrey Chester []
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:03 PM
To: Matthias Schunter
Subject: Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

Regulators in both US and EU now say that its both collection and use that's the problem.  The US regulators understand that the industry has implemented a wide-ranging first+third party data collection system (ad exchanges are good example of this).  We will see greater focus on collection in regulatory policy debates.

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009<><>

On Feb 9, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Matthias Schunter wrote:

Hi Team,

for DNT-related data,  Roy's assessment of the key regulatory concerns
matches my experience


On 2/9/2012 10:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

Judging from my personal discussions with regulators, I would not
say that data collection constraints are a significant concern.
Data sharing (on purpose or by failure to handle it properly) is
the primary concern.  Data retention beyond that necessary to
support user-consented operational uses, or in a form that is
unnecessary to support operational uses, is a concern.
Obtaining specific and informed consent is a concern.

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:18:17 UTC