- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:03:29 +0200
- To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
On Monday 01 October 2012 10:59:06 Alan Chapell wrote: > Yes. That makes sense. I'm not looking for exemptions to swallow > the rule. Alan, that's my fear. Having been involved in Internet filtering discussions for a long time, I can tell you that the request from PCMCP is not really reasonable for a large variety of reasons. Therefore I said, it is not sufficient to argue only in the TPWG. Because you could probably find some rule from a less democratic country that will require a total filter and identification. Would we then just say "we honor dnt" and come through the backdoor via permitted use and track everything for good? If this effort is not only about advertisement, this is your use case. We get into choppy waters here. While law can and should override, not every code of conduct should trump the TPC IMHO. I see that the industry wants to just get rid of the problem. But I don't believe we can do so easily without damaging our overall effort. Maybe the 6 weeks window offers an escape line. Rigo
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 16:03:59 UTC