- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:44:11 +0100
- To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Amy Colando <acolando@microsoft.com>
Kimon, On Wednesday 22 February 2012 08:19:28 Kimon Zorbas wrote: > I am not sure we should delve into legal terms, working on a technical > standard. While at high level this might be correct for the EU level > Directive, we have 27 versions of data controller (Data Protection in EU > not being harmonized, with differing definitions across the EU) and also > we currently have a proposal to revise the 95/46/EC Data protection > Directive and don't know how processors position might change and fit with > what you proposed. > I think you have a valid argument. The 27 versions are the reason why they are going for a regulation now. But please do consider that Amy's definition also has legal consequences for those who claim to be DNT compliant in most jurisdictions I know. A service makes promises and is bound by those promises. If the promise would be in line with the EU stuff (at least partly), this will ease your pain, not mine, as services will have already covered a part of their compliance. For the EU, IMHO, DNT can only be a part of the picture. I try to get maximum benefits from DNT for that part. Isn't this in your sense? Why not? Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 08:44:35 UTC