Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Chris,

I had written on this point – and yes, we need our audience measurement be excluded (obviously within reasonable limits, i.e. as far anonymisation or other safeguards are applied).
In Europe, as you now we have a regulatory – very strict- environment that regulates the data usage. We need DNT to just respect that.

Kimon


From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
Date: Wednesday 24 October 2012 18:37
To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl<mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

And ABCe requirements?  What can you tell us about those?

Btw- as I'm sure you are aware, we don't have "Jics" in the United States, so I'm hoping you might appreciate that it's not particularly relevant to us in the context of DNT for the US market (where we have our own self-regulatory bodies).  I'm sure you would agree then, in so much as MRC is not relevant to you, Jics is not relevant to us, and as such, requirements around each should be respected by DNT, OR DNT should take a jurisdictional approach to compliance.

Best,

Chris


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB


From: Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:27 AM
To: Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, David Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl<mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

We have actually Jics in each country and they conduct audience measurement themselves (or outsource it) - so slightly different. As far as I know, they all process anonymous data. In this perspective, I'd like to pint out the remarks of VP Kroes (re exceptions and anonymous data usage). Someone had distributed it.


From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
Date: Wednesday 24 October 2012 18:22
To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl<mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Kimon,  that's probably a good point you are raising.  MRC IS in fact valid here in the US, but is not so much so in Europe.  This further illustrates that one compliance scheme for DNT globally, is a flawed concept— something I have been saying for some time.

Btw- you have your versions of MRC in Europe— ABCe is one such example ( http://www.abc.org.uk/).  Perhaps you could do some research with them and other similar industry oversight orgs, about their requirements on data retention, and present that research to the working group?  That would probably be very useful.

But at the end of the day, we are going to keep running our heads into the same wall:  that wall is, every jurisdiction has its own unique and sovereign practices that should be respected.  You guys should do what's good for Europeans (personally, I don't see all the good, and I can point to many downsides, but I'm not European), and we should do what's good for United Statesmen.  And Mexicans should do what's right for Mexicans.  And so on…


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB | chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>

From: Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:32 AM
To: David Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl<mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:33 AM

David,

I am struggling to understand why MRC should be relevant in Europe? (I am a bit lost in this debate – it seems to me that MRC certifies products to conduct measurement - in the US). If companies operate in Europe, they need to comply with our strict laws.

Audience measurement in Europe is to my knowledge conducted via anonymous data. Safe Harbor wouldn't apply to such data. If audience data is transferred to outside the EEA (and adequate countries), then there is no issue (with anonymous data sets). If personal data is collected, then you could benefit of the Safe Harbor regime as a US based company. Not sure that has anything to do with MRC (being only a certification body, if I understand correctly).

Kind regards,
Kimon

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
Date: Wednesday 24 October 2012 17:15
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl<mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday 24 October 2012 17:15

Is this the view of other Europeans participating in this working group?

On 10/24/12 10:39 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
Actually, from a EU perspective this standard as a whole is unnecessary
because most business practices, at least the one that are publicly
known, in this field are in violation of EU-law already.
So why do we keep talking about it in terms of EU law? Why do we
continue to have proposals aimed at suiting EU requirements?
Well, I am going to be offensive again and maybe even patronising, but
the US legal context for privacy discussions is not quite up to par with
the rest of the industrialised world. For all its defects, the European
legal framework embodies a coherent framework of concepts on this
subject matter. Which sadly the USA does not have. So, apart from my own
geographical bias by virtue of being Dutch, other than in terms of
consent it is difficult to discuss this in outside the terms of EU law.
Not to mention that similar frameworks have been adopted by Canada,
Australia, South-Africa, Japan, Korea and Brazil as well as that India
is in the process of moving in a similar direction.

   I will be
happy if we can once and for all determine that this
Having a
mechanism for consent in the form of DNT is much more significant in the
US context than in the EU context. The fact that various EU parties are
sitting at the table in this process is in itself a sign that the lack
of appetite by the US to import EU concepts (unlike most other
democracies on the planet) has been noticed in the EU.
Are you saying that EU participation in this forum is precisely for the
purpose of trying to impose EU concepts on US companies?
No, it is an acknowledgement that EU law is not applicable in the USA
and that merely leaning back basking in an ill-conceived dream of
EU-superiority in this regard is not going to be helpful at all if large
parts of the relevant industries are (for now) out of scope of EU law.
Therefore it is still useful to participate in a self-regulatory
approach, despite it being unnecessary in the EU-context.

But to my previous question, if the EU can impose these concepts
extra-territorially through regulation then why try to do it through
this DNT process?
Well, why get to what you want by asking nicely if you can do it by
holding a gun to someone's head? The former is rather more constructive,
one would think.

Regards,

   Walter