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

I think we should focus on ensuring that the spec provides meaningful privacy/tracking protection for global Interrnet users.  The EU data protection call for more effective control by individuals of their data and online experience sets an important marker of what is expected to be done.  

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
Washington DC
www.democraticmedia.org
Jeff@democraticmedia.org

On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> Finally, the US folks see some decent EU fight! :)
> 
> let me add to it that W3C is not the body where law is made and 
> compliance to law is determined. We only define the conduits of the 
> Web. We are the plumbers. If the regulator says you need a conduit 
> here, we may want to provide that conduit. 
> 
> The approach here is rather to create a line where one can escape 
> the troubles of running on the edge of law by having some practice 
> in some specific area that is acceptable to all. DNT is only a tiny 
> aspect in the overall EU regulatory debate.
> 
> Now saying that we really want to run close to the 27 edges that may 
> be in Europe is different than trying to come closer to what the 27 
> DPAs have stated positively as acceptable to them. While I 
> understand that it is the IAB Europe's job to challenge every single 
> of the 27 transpositions to the edge, taking the requirement that we 
> run on 27 edges is asking for too much IMHO, so we have to look for 
> common grounds to achieve the single market (hey, that's the 
> ultimate keyword for the EU). 
> 
> Remember, we want to create a useful tool that works across those 27 
> systems. And because of the diversity, the regulation is under way. 
> And the EU regulation will be uniform law in all 27 member states. 
> So while you may be right Kimon, is it really helpful to hide behind 
> the current regulatory chaos and neglect the upcoming common basis 
> and create a useful tool?
> 
> Rigo
> 
> On Tuesday 12 June 2012 21:28:09 Kimon Zorbas wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> with all due respect - many lawyers across Europe make money by
>> trying to look into the crystal ball: will the national DPA
>> follow any Art. 29 WP opinion or not?
>> 
>> We have repeatedly stated that Article 29WP IS NOT THE EUROPEAN
>> ENFORCEMENT BODY OR REGULATOR. It is JUST giving a LEGALLY NOT
>> BINDING opinion. Apologies for caps, but it is somehow difficult
>> to work in this group without accepting the legal realities. For
>> clarification, this is also what the European Commission says -
>> just in case somebody thinks I'm twisting things here.
>> 
>> Please do not believe that Article 29 WP is the European law. In
>> Europe, data protection is not harmonised and we have diverging
>> laws.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Kimon
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com>
>> To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject: Today&apos;s call: summary on user agent compliance
>> Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 9:37 pm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 23:23:39 UTC