- From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:30:44 +0000
- To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Mike, Once again the debate here comes back to regional (jurisdictional) differences. So I'll kindly point out again, that we should re-visit a regional/jurisdictional approach to compliance. In my opinion, we'd be done by now if we took that approach. And respectfully, it's not like the US hasn't studied privacy (we have a storied history in this domain)-- please don't conflate a lack of laws and regulation as ignorance for the issues. Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB On 10/24/12 5:03 PM, "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote: >David > >I basically agree with Walter. I am not a lawyer and certainly not an >expert >on US versus EU legal systems but I know these data protection issues have >been extensively worked over here by democratic institutions in the member >states, the European Commission and fully debated in (and passed into law >by) the European Parliament. He is not saying our institutions are any >better, just that we have been working on these issues longer, with the >benefit of elected bodies. > >Also many politicians in Europe represent peoples who have a relatively >recent experience of undemocratic government, and maybe have a clearer >view >of the threats it poses. > >Mike > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Wainberg [mailto:david@networkadvertising.org] >Sent: 24 October 2012 16:15 >To: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org >Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > >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 Thursday, 25 October 2012 14:31:43 UTC