- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:15:48 -0800
- To: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I believe attempts to "add on" to the party responsibilities within legal process "outside of the DNT standard" is outside of scope of the working group. Instead I would suggest the preamble of each document simply state "this standard is not intended to override local, state, or country law." - Shane -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lowenthal [mailto:tom@mozilla.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:11 PM To: David Singer; public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: Mandatory Legal Process (ACTION-57, ISSUE-28) I don't think we need anything apart from Jonathan's text. I'd argue that for process applied to data collected in a third party capacity, notification is a must; for first party data, a should; and for any breach where you must notify some users, you must notify all users. On Wed 25 Jan 2012 06:43:06 PM CET, David Singer wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2012, at 16:12 , Jonathan Mayer wrote: > >> Proposed text: >> >> A party MAY take action contrary to the requirements of this standard if compelled by mandatory legal process. To the extent allowed by law, the party MUST (SHOULD? MAY? non-normative?) notify affected users. > > which means we need a 'legal exception'? > > > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 18:16:44 UTC