Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

On 10/25/12 10:29 PM, David Wainberg wrote:

> First, I do not disagree with taking EU concerns or needs into
> consideration. Though I do think we've been confused about the extent
> we're doing so, or what it means. Perhaps your Global Considerations
> effort will clarify things.
> 
> However, the way I read Walter's statements, and, frankly, some
> statements of others, is that he would use this W3C process to apply EU
> style privacy regulation across the Internet, including in the US. This
> is not the proper venue for that.

Dear David,

First of all, let me be the first to agree that this would be not the
proper venue of that. Furthermore, I am definitely not in any position
to do so, I am merely a concerned citizen who happens to have expertise
relevant to this process. Since your interpretation was based on my
mail, I apologise for any misunderstanding I may have caused in this regard.

> and it's irrelevant. The reality is that approaches to privacy vary
> across jurisdictions, and we should honor that. We need a DNT policy
> that fits well within existing frameworks in the jurisdictions where it
> will be enforced.

Very much this, indeed. And that is the reason I am involved in the
first place: like Rigo I think there is a potential to come up with a
DNT standard that can be reconciled with the legal environment on both
sides of the Atlantic. And it would greatly sadden me if we were to lose
such an opportunity.

I am also grateful for your willingness to learn about the reality and
the perceptions on this side of the Atlantic. Because we are utterly
dependent on every participant's willingness to have a level-headed
conversation about this.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 20:54:05 UTC