- From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:58:11 -0700
- To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hello: Web page for the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing, beginning at 2:30 p.m. eastern on this Wednesday: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id =1cf8fb1a-fb0b-4bf1-958b-1ea3c443a73c&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d3 5-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a Witnesses: * Mr. Harvey Anderson Senior Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs and General Counsel Mozilla * Mr. Justin Brookman Director, Project on Consumer Privacy Center for Democracy and Technology * Mr. Luigi Mastria Managing Director Digital Advertising Alliance * Mr. Adam Thierer Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center George Mason University Professor Peter P. Swire C. William O'Neill Professor of Law Ohio State University 240.994.4142 www.peterswire.net -----Original Message----- From: <SULLIVAN>, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com> Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:54 PM To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: RE: Wednesday call this week on TPE; schedule leading up to F2F >Peter, can you forward more info on the "U.S. Senate hearing scheduled on >DNT", e.g. >- what WG members will be witnesses >- how we can access the webcast > >Thanks, >Bryan Sullivan > >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Swire [mailto:peter@peterswire.net] >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:17 AM >To: rob@blaeu.com >Cc: public-tracking@w3.org >Subject: Wednesday call this week on TPE; schedule leading up to F2F > >Hello to the Group: > >Matthias will circulate today an agenda for this Wednesday's call that >will have TPE matters as the focus. > >As many of you know, there is a U.S. Senate hearing scheduled on DNT just >shortly after the weekly call. Three of the four witnesses are members of >the WG, and other WG members (including myself) expect to be physically at >the hearing, along with others watching the webcast. > >The call this week will thus focus on TPE, and I am not sure whether I >will be able to be on it. > >The next Wednesday call will be on May 1, and I expect it to be an >important call. Apologies to those in countries where May 1 is a holiday, >but I expect that call to have a lot of important content about the >compliance spec and the F2F. > >W3C staff and I are working hard to have more to present to the WG about >how to use the F2F constructively. We will be following up during this >week as we have more to say. > >Best, > >Peter > > > > > > >Professor Peter P. Swire >C. William O'Neill Professor of Law > Ohio State University >240.994.4142 >www.peterswire.net > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> >Reply-To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com> >Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:23 PM >To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Peter Swire ><peter@peterswire.net> >Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org> >Subject: Re: FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez's speech > >> >>Thank you John, it inspired me to write an open letter to the chairs >>and the group. >> >>Dear Peter, >>Dear Matthias, >>Dear group members, >> >>The honorable mrs. Ramirez makes it clear in her speech that the FTC >>advocates a DNT that allows consumers to stop the collection of nearly >>all behavioral data gathered across sites and not just the serving of >>targeted ads. On behalf of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party >>I am echoing this criterium of collection limitation. >> >>As expressed on the call, time has come to make a choice whether Do Not >>Track means Do Not Collect or Do Not Use. The privacy advocates >>positions gear towards a collection limitation instrument, the >>advertising industry positions gear towards a use limitation approach >>that may well resemble or carbon copy the DAA code of conduct. >> >>Peter called for proposals to move forward. Before proposing a way to >>move forward I will address three concerns. >> >>First, It is clear to me that trying to bridge the two positions is a >>waste of our time. The two positions are so far apart that in terms of >>game theory no optimal solution is possible. I expressed this on the >>call today, when Peter thinking through the possible scenario's for the >>upcoming face 2 face meeting. >> >>Second, it is also clear to me that the W3C process of the least >>objectionable proposal, is not suited to bridge the gap between the >>compliance positions. If a decision is based on choosing the least >>objectionable proposal, it will show that the process is not a democracy >>by votes. It also has an an important implication, namely that if the >>chair is making such a decision, W3C becomes the problem owner. I find >>the fact that W3C may become the problem owner a big risk for a multi >>stakeholder process. It is a risk that concerns me. >> >>Third, time is ticking. Last Call is planned for July 2013 and this >>status is an important deadline. It is unlikely that the group will >>remain complete if the deadline of July 2013 is not met. It is a risk >>that concerns me even more. Making a swift choice what the problem is >>the group is willing to solve should be on the top of our issue list. >> >>I therefore propose a way to move forward. A wise way forward IMHO >>would be to make an affirmative choice either 1. for collection >>limitation or 2. for use limitation with clear and specific added value >>to the existing self regulatory solutions or 3. for a NoGo (ie a >>premature closure of the whole multi stakeholder exercise). >> >>This choice for 1 or 2 allows the disentanglement of many of the >>interdependent issues that have held the process in a deadlock for too >>long. This choice also allows for the breakdown of the problem at hand >>into sub-issues, that can effectively be addressed in time and solved >>before Last Call. Making this choice asap allows us to make use of our >>valuable face 2 face time in Sunnyvale. >> >>Whether a choice for option 2 will be acceptable for the privacy >>advocates remains to be seen. Although the time is ticking, there is a >>window of opportunity for the stakeholders of the advertising industry >>to do the right things to convince the privacy advocates of the added >>value that DNT will bring to their self regulatory solutions. >> >>Regards, >>Rob van Eijk >> >>John Simpson schreef op 2013-04-17 21:34: >>> Colleagues, >>> >>> FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramiez has just made an interesting speech to >>> the American Advertising Federation that touches on our efforts to >>> develop a Do Not Track standard. >>> >>> I've attached it as a PDF file. >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> John M. Simpson >>> Privacy Project Director >>> Consumer Watchdog >>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 >>> Santa Monica, CA, 90405 >>> >>> Tel: 310-392-7041 >>> Cell: 310-292-1902 >>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org [1] >>> john@consumerwatchdog.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org > >
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 23:58:35 UTC