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

Roy, 

if nothing would be in the Specification, I wouldn't make noise. Rob 
wouldn't either. But it says:

=====
Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained and 
used for complying with local laws and public purposes, such as 
copyright protection and delivery of emergency services.
=====

and proposed is a change to:
=====
Normative: Regardless of DNT signal, information MAY be collected, 
retained, used and shared for complying with applicable laws, 
regulations, legal obligations and other public purposes, including, 
but not limited to, intellectual property protection, delivery of 
emergency services, and relevant self-regulatory verification 
requirements.
=====

we have added:
 * legal obligations (feel free to contract whatever and it trumps)
 * other public purposes (whatever they are, this is a wide open 
   container)
 * including, but not limited to (blue sky approach)
 * relevant self regulatory verification requirements (MRC meant, 
   but easy to adhere to the audience behavioral online verification 
   and education (above) which requires collection of social 
   security numbers. 

I'm not saying that anyone here has a firm intent to do all of the 
above, but it shows the loopholes in this definition. I think we 
mostly agree on what we want, but have trouble putting it in words. 
And yes, the other discussion was perhaps not the most effective way 
to discuss the issue. 

Rigo


On Wednesday 24 October 2012 16:07:05 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Vinay, in all other wording, all other self-regulation would
> > trump  W3C DNT despite the user using the W3C DNT signal. So if
> > we have the user send a signal DNT:DAA or DNT:EU and the
> > service responds YES, that's fine. But we do not send that
> > signal. We send DNT:1 or DNT:0
> That isn't true.  If nothing whatsoever is said about legal or
> contractual requirements in our specification, then those laws
> will still override W3C and those contracts won't override W3C.
> 
> The entire discussion is a waste of time.

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 23:22:18 UTC