Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

Hi Walter,

On 11/12/12 4:34 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> On 11/12/12 5:16 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>
>> it's difficult for anyone to presume a detailed legal position at
>> this time so I would respectfully ask all of us to stop trying.  When
>> you have jurisprudence and actual court cases that has survived the
>> highest levels of the US Court of Justice, then we'll have something
>> to discuss.
> The controller/processor model has been tested in EU courts until the
> highest level (European Court of Justice in Luxembourg). There is no
> such thing as 3rd party in EU jurisdictions.
>
> For pragmatic reasons I am willing to go along with the 1st/3rd party
> distinction. That will not prevent me or others from pointing out where
> its consequences become unworkable. Redirects are just one example of that.

What do you mean about pragmatic reasons? It keeps sounding like 
advocates in this group are willing to do away with 3rd party companies, 
without much net privacy gain for users, in order to just get something 
done. Just getting something done is not a sufficient justification to 
put companies out of business and radically alter the internet economy. 
We should be more careful about fully understanding what tradeoffs we're 
making. But the working group has not been willing to analyze the real 
consequences of the DNT standard we are designing. Perhaps it would be 
helpful to bring in economists or other experts to help the group 
further understand.

-David

Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 13:00:54 UTC