W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2012

Re: ACTION-265

From: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:50:09 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <01886F18-7231-4B44-904E-64BE95E43BE5@blurryedge.com>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>

I have to say I think this is an extraneous provision.  It does nothing to affect liability imposed for promises that were made while the company was out of compliance that were not adhered to.  Saying that a company who has promised DNT and breached that promise can continue to to claim to be in compliance with it for an arbitrary period of additional time is bizarre.  It is self-evident that to cap liability for the breach of promise you need to either stop promising or must bring your practices into compliance with the standard.

It could be useful for the group to require that a company that finds itself out of compliance (a) notify its users or (b) require that it delete any data collected while the company was not accurately tagging the data's DNT signal.  

Lauren Gelman
BlurryEdge Strategies

On Oct 16, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Updated text per our discussions in Amsterdam.
> Tracking Compliance and Scope
> Section 3.8.1
> It may happen that a party claiming compliance with this standard will retain or use data without awareness that it is doing so contrary to its intended party position with respect to the standard. In such a case, the party must bring its practices and prior collected data into compliance with the standard within a commercially reasonable time after it learns of such non-compliant activity.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 20:51:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:58 UTC