Re: ACTION 124

Rigo, I fully understand where you come from. But whether DNT can be a
compliance solution depends on facts and (unfortunately) not on our (W3C)
statements. In other words, DNT might be accepted as providing compliance
in some cases and in some countries but not in other. If we state clear
terms, publishers and others might be mislead and rely on W3C statements
and I guess we don't want W3C to take on such role (and liability).

Makes sense?

Kimon



On 22/02/12 09:44, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>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 08:50:39 UTC