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

Re: ACTION-262 Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

From: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:06:03 -0700
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
Message-ID: <CCAD7AFC.1BEFB%vigoel@adobe.com>
Hi Rigo,

This text goes down the same rathole that we've been in for the past two
days.  There is a strong need for third parties to be able to collect and
use information to fulfill both contractual obligations (such as being
able to do frequency capping and/or being able to show that ads were not
served on competitor sites) and self-regulatory requirements (the example
was given for the MDC).  Neither of those are required by specific law in
many markets.  The language you proposed says that the W3C DNT specs trump
all other self-regulatory requirements.


On 10/24/12 10:54 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>I think the hole is created by trying to make a transition into a
>general rule. If you need to track and you're not a first party, you
>either need to action the API and get consent or you need a
>permitted use. If you have neither, you can't deliver the service or
>you can't implement DNT. Having a general opening for agreements is
>just displacing the consensus from this group into any arbitrary
>contract negotiation between two businesses that will then determine
>what DNT means to the user. But the users in our case assume that it
>means what is written in the compliance specification without the
>opening. This will lead to huge surprises IMHO.
>So we should add some transition on the one hand into an annex of
>the compliance document. I think nobody ever disputed:
>1/ that law trumps DNT
>2/ that data collection necessary for the service delivery can occur
>Point 2/ is even written down in the ePrivacy Directive. And we
>shouldn't be stricter. But your statement goes beyond.
>So my suggestion would be to change the specification text to:
>Where data collection is required by law directly and not via
>contractual obligations, this law will prevail over the rules of
>this specification.
>We could write explanatory prose on how to handle cases.
>On Wednesday 24 October 2012 16:23:40 Amy Colando wrote:
>> Hi Rigo and Rob, the intent behind this language is certainly not
>> to override DNT in a very broad way.  We tried to address the
>> concern regarding contracts in the non-normative text by
>> differentiating between existing and new contractual obligations,
>> which is a concept we have discussed in a few face-to-face
>> meetings.  Alternative text submissions or modifications would be
>> helpful to move forward.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:06:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:59 UTC