RE: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Rob,

It was my understanding that the A29WP Opinion was non-legally binding and we still require each member country to transpose the ePrivacy Directive and it's those laws, not the A29WP Opinion, that is legally binding.  Correct?

Thank you,
Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:36 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Hi Alan,

>> I've heard respected EU privacy experts state that – of the member 
>> states that have taken a public position on Section 5(3) of ePrivacy 
>> etc.

I would like to state that from today on, this argument no longer 
holds. With our current opinion on cookie consent exemptions, it should 
be clear
that ALL 27 EU member states have expressed with one voice what the 
baseline position on Section 5.3 is.

Rob



Alan Chapell schreef op 2012-06-12 21:13:
> Hi Tamir -
>
> I think that's a laudable goal. However, the standard should not be
> looking to address every possible regulatory issue at the expense of
> the core mission of the group - which is to help define mechanisms 
> for
> expressing user preferences around Web tracking (as defined). That
> core mission may fit really well into certain legal frameworks - and
> fit less well in other frameworks. The uncertainty in certain
> jurisdictions makes this a difficult proposition to say the least.
> I've heard respected EU privacy experts state that - of the member
> states that have taken a public position on Section 5(3) of ePrivacy 
> -
> half appear to be opt-in and half appear to be opt-out for most
> cookies. And the UK has arguably changed its stance on the cookie
> issue several times since our group began its work - and for a time
> had one branch of government saying something vastly different from
> another branch.
>
> I recognize that some in the group may be more optimistic regarding
> the time it would take to harmonize this standard across multiple
> jurisdictions. If that's the consensus of the group, so be it. If so,
> we may want to more clearly state this in the group's charter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
>
> From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca [1]>
> Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:13 PM
> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com [2]>
> Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu [3]>, <ifette@google.com 
> [4]>,
> Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com [5]>, Jeffrey Chester
> <jeff@democraticmedia.org [6]>, Ninja Marnau
> <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de [7]>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org [8]>,
> Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net [9]>, David Singer
> <singer@apple.com [10]>, "public-tracking@w3.org [11]
> (public-tracking@w3.org [12])" <public-tracking@w3.org [13]>
> Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
>
>  Hi Alan,
>
>  Would it not be in the interests of all if this standard were able 
> to
> take into account as many regulatory problems for online trackers as
> possible?
>
>  Best,
>  Tamir
>
>  On 6/11/2012 11:41 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the group is spending a fair amount of time
>> focusing on how DNT will provide a panacea to the legal uncertainty
>> in the EU and now Canada. I'm not sure its a productive road for
>> this group to be going down. DNT is unlikely to be the sole path to
>> compliance in either the EU or Canada.
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca
> [2] mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com
> [3] mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu
> [4] mailto:ifette@google.com
> [5] mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com
> [6] mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org
> [7] mailto:nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de
> [8] mailto:rigo@w3.org
> [9] mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net
> [10] mailto:singer@apple.com
> [11] mailto:public-tracking@w3.org
> [12] mailto:public-tracking@w3.org
> [13] mailto:public-tracking@w3.org

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:49:24 UTC