- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:46:07 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Brooks, On Monday 01 October 2012 20:25:19 Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > Another example that just sprung to mind along Alan's line of > thinking is pharmaceuticals. I know pharmaceutical advertisers > who may store both the IP address of the adserving serving event > and the referring URL (site on which the ad appeared) to comply > with requirements that they not market certain regulated products > outside of certain geographical confines. Than they should also record all IP addresses and requests and store them indefinitely to provide evidence that they did not send porn out before 10pm. This case assumes that our society has the principle of presumption of culpability. In such a society we need to provide evidence that we haven't infringed anything. :) I know that those are real cases. But wait a second. What should we back here? Their paranoia? If those services are paranoid, they should openly admit their data collection. And not doing so under DNT:1 and permitted uses. If there is a law obliging them, this is not an issue. The law prevails. Rigo
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 20:46:34 UTC