- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:14:22 -0400
- To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
- CC: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5088683E.5060306@networkadvertising.org>
Rob, Rigo, Ninja, what are your thoughts? On 10/24/12 6:12 PM, David Wainberg wrote: > Hi Kimon, > > I would not suggest that MRC is or should be relevant in Europe. My > questions to other Europeans in the group is whether they share > Walter's position, quoted below, regarding U.S. law and the goals for > the DNT standard. > > -David > > On 10/24/12 11:32 AM, Kimon Zorbas wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 22:14:52 UTC