Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose


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" <> wrote:

>I basically agree with Walter. I am not a lawyer and certainly not an
>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
>of the threats it poses.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Wainberg []
>Sent: 24 October 2012 16:15
>To: Walter van Holst;
>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
>> 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
>> 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