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: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:40:52 -0800
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, Joanne Furtsch <jfurtsch@truste.com>, MeMe Rasmussen <meme@adobe.com>, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D0C425948@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
If the concern is that a party can somehow contract their way out of DNT compliance (versus other types of legal/government obligations) then I'm fine with calling that out more directly.

- Shane

From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:36 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: John Simpson; Amy Colando (LCA); Joanne Furtsch; MeMe Rasmussen; Tom Lowenthal; Jonathan Mayer; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mandatory Legal Process (ACTION-57, ISSUE-28)


On Jan 31, 2012, at 19:22 , Shane Wiley wrote:


Agreed - NO text seems like the appropriate path (in agreement with Amy and John).

well, the rationale was way back at the end of the thread.  it's two-fold:

a) you can send DNT, but don't forget that tracking may still happen if legally required - there is a 'legislation exception'
b) a notification of a 'legislation exception taken' will be signaled if legally possible, but under some laws, notification itself is not allowed.

we can also explain that having a *contract* that 'forces' you to track is not a valid exception...

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 19:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:31 UTC