W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2012

RE: Mandatory Legal Process (ACTION-57, ISSUE-28)

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>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D0C4250BC@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC