- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:13:43 +0900
- To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
- Cc: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
My regrets; I am at an MPEG meeting in Korea. (I hope I am up to date on edits and so on). On Apr 23, 2013, at 21:17 , Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote: > 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 > > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 01:14:17 UTC