Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

I am concerned about the direction this has taken.

Of course, DNT must not override applicable law. And since this is 
fundamental, it makes sence to include this as a preamble to all further 
specifications.

But I do not see a good a reason to group contractual obligations, 
public purposes (whatever this includes), emergency services, and 
self-regulatory requirements on the same level as laws and keep them 
outside of the permitted uses. With all due respect, these have not the 
same political and democratic legitimacy as laws. They are civil 
agreements for mostly industry-derived purposes. So why should they be 
outside of the permitted uses?

Contracts and self-regulatory frameworks may impose obligations which 
are fundamentally opposed to the final rusult of the compliance spec. If 
we want to grant exceptions for these purposes, we should discuss the 
general nature of these requirements as new permitted uses with details 
for purpose, data minimization, etc.

Ninja


Am 19.10.2012 19:48, schrieb Jeffrey Chester:
> Can someone explain, as I may have missed something.  MRC is working to
> better define cross-tracking metrics used for targeting, etc.  In what
> context are we discussing such analytics be permitted under the spec?
>
>
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org>
> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org>
> 202-986-2220
>
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 1:21 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
>
>> MRC is the Media Ratings Council, http://mediaratingcouncil.org/,
>> formed out of US Congressional hearings in the 60's.
>>
>> The other example that's come up is the UK's Prescription Medicines
>> Code of Practice
>> Authority, http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx.
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/12 5:14 PM, John Simpson wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, maybe I missed something -- it certainly wouldn't be the
>>> first time -- but what is MRC accreditation?
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> John M. Simpson
>>> Consumer Advocate
>>> Consumer Watchdog
>>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>>> Santa Monica, CA,90405
>>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
>>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi John.
>>>> This was intended to address the MRC accreditation scenario that was
>>>> previously raised.
>>>> *From:*John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
>>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:19 PM
>>>> *To:*Amy Colando (LCA)
>>>> *Cc:*public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>> *Subject:*Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>>>> Amy,
>>>> A clarifying question: Can you please give a use case for what sort
>>>> of data would be collected for "relevant self-regulatory requirements"?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> John
>>>> ----------
>>>> John M. Simpson
>>>> Consumer Advocate
>>>> Consumer Watchdog
>>>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>>>> Santa Monica, CA,90405
>>>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>>>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Apologies that I have lost track of Action number, which I will
>>>>     look up later.  Many thanks to Vinay, MeMe and David W. for
>>>>     assisting with this text.
>>>>     *6.1.1.9 Compliance with Local Law and Public Purpose*
>>>>     *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.
>>>>     *Non-normative: *This specification does not purport to require
>>>>     parties to breach existing contractual obligations.  At the same
>>>>     time, it is expected that parties implementing this
>>>>     specification should not enter into new contractual obligations
>>>>     that have the effect of circumventing specification
>>>>     requirements. This specification recognizes that there are
>>>>     legitimate self-regulatory regimes that both protect consumer
>>>>     interests and govern certain data practices, and the
>>>>     specification does not intend to conflict with these regimes.
>>>>     However, parties should whenever possible adhere to the letter
>>>>     and spirit of this specification, and should not look to such
>>>>     regimes as merely a means to circumvent the specification.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 

Ninja Marnau
mail: NMarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de - http://www.datenschutzzentrum.de
Telefon: +49 431/988-1285, Fax +49 431/988-1223
Unabhaengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein
Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 11:38:18 UTC