- From: Ninja Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:20:45 +0200
- To: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
There has been a long discussion on the explicit/explicit exception pairs. It kind of bogged down some weeks ago. I want to further motivate that we keep at least the option of a non-"*" exception in the spec. I will list the reasons that I already mentioned in DC but did not write down. Some of these arguments were already made in the related discussions referred below. 1) Liability: A site-wide exception requested by the provider can be translated to (I am quoting Ian here): "I ask you to trust me to pick reputable third parties." The issue here is that this blanket exception request creates under several legislations an (additional) unintentional liability of the first party for its third parties. Although under the EU Directive 95/46 the first party (data controller) already is responsible for its data processors' behaviour, it is generally not responsible for third parties who are data controllers themselves. Outside the EU there may be no liability for third parties without site-wide exceptions in the beginning. But this changes when the first party steps up and asks the user to trust its choice of third parties without giving further information on who will be responsible. If a (to the user unknown) third party misuses the data, the user may sue the first party (if she can track the misuse back to a specific first party), which then may have to prove to chose and control its third parties with special diligence ("reputable" for sure is not sufficient in Germany at least). 2)Informed consent: Consent may be site wide, but to be considered "informed", the user must be able to gain knowledge about the third parties that are considered data controllers (collect and process data on their own behalf). These data controllers are legally responsible in the EU. Therefore, the user needs to be able to determine who they are (even outside the EU this is of importance for reasons of litigation, objection, etc.) If we want the exceptions to at least partly work as an opt-in according to the ePrivacy Directive (only for third parties) transparency is necessary, granularity in choice would be the most convinient way to implement this in the DNT recommendation imho. I went through all of these related threads. I apologise if I missed some arguments. Action 172: Write up more detailed list of use cases for origin/origin exceptions http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/172 The discussion thread on "explicit-explicit exception pairs" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Apr/0196.html ISSUE-129: User-granted Exceptions a) Site-wide Exceptions (mysite, any-third party) http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/129 ISSUE-147: Transporting Consent via the Exception / DNT mechanisms http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/147 Ninja -- Ninja Marnau mail: NMarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de - http://www.datenschutzzentrum.de Telefon: +49 431/988-1285, Fax +49 431/988-1223 Unabhaengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 13:19:34 UTC