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

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 []
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;
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