- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:28:04 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
On Friday 26 October 2012 15:25:21 David Wainberg wrote: > Another piece is the need to allow for existing contracts. To the > extent that this DNT standard affects the nature of contractual > measurement, reporting, and auditing requirements in the future, > there is a need to provide an exception for existing contracts. David, reporting/auditin is done in the "financial reporting" permitted use. I still think that financial reporting is a bit underspecified. The question of contracts is not easy. OBA happens because there are contracts. Those contracts describe a certain expected behavior. Having an exception for contracts would include those installing OBA. The entire reason for DNT would vanish in one exception and we could only hope that people wouldn't use that loophole. After 12 years in privacy, I don't believe that the loophole will remain unused. If one uses the loophole, a race to the bottom will be created. No level playing field anymore. That's why we have to be careful IMHO. Rigo
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 19:28:30 UTC