RE: California Bill requires disclosure when websites track users - DNT

Your point about CA just changing the entire web, is reality.  Identifying a
user's physically location to segment notices is operationally unrealistic
unless you already have a user profile / preference center.  Certainly
shifts accountability to first party sites.   

 

Once again CA "leads" the nation.  I believe they were the first on spam,
spyware, breach notification, mobile and other efforts.    

 

From: Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:27 PM
To: Craig Spiezle; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: California Bill requires disclosure when websites track users -
DNT

 

>>  I know of another State is thinking of the same

 

Can you share the state?

 

>> So question is will the "disclosure be buried within a privacy policy",
or in the form of a pop up on the site to notify a user on first visit?

 

No idea at the moment. But I do have one question. 

 

The California Business and Professions Code

CHAPTER 22.  INTERNET PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS .................... 22575-22579

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000
&file=22575-22579> &group=22001-23000&file=22575-22579 

 

[snip]

 

(c) The term "operator" means any person or entity that owns a Web site
located on the Internet or an online service that collects and maintains
personally identifiable information from a consumer residing in California
who uses or visits the Web site or online service if the Web site or online
service is operated for commercial purposes. It does not include any third
party that operates, hosts, or manages, but does not own, a Web site or
online service on the owner's behalf or by processing information on behalf
of the owner.

 

[/snip]

 

So does this mean that every web site must now check to determine the
location of the connection?

 

IF so then CA just changed the entire web, because every connection must be
checked for compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter

_________________________



 

 

From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:20 PM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com>,
"public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: RE: California Bill requires disclosure when websites track users -
DNT

 

Thanks for sharing.   I know of another State is thinking of the same.
Interesting not a single vote opposed.  

 

So question is will the "disclosure be buried within a privacy policy", or
in the form of a pop up on the site to notify a user on first visit?   In
any case disclosure of respecting or ignoring users preference of not
collecting their data is a good thing.  Transparency builds trust and
confidence. 

 

 

 

From: Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:56 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: California Bill requires disclosure when websites track users - DNT

 

Article: California Bill requires disclosure when websites track users

12:55 PM, Aug 22, 2013, PST

http://www.news10.net/news/california/article/255017/430/Calif-bill-requires
-disclosure-when-websites-track-users

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The state Senate has approved an Internet privacy
bill sought by the attorney general.  

Operators of commercial websites or online services that collect personal
information would be required to disclose on their sites whether they honor
"do not track" signals from users. 

 

Under AB 370, they also would have to say whether other parties can collect
personal information from consumers' use of that website. The state attorney
general's office says websites frequently install invisible tracking devices
on users' computers, including some that reinstall themselves even after
users try to delete them. The bill by Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi
of Torrance would require sites to disclose their policies.  It was approved
36-0 Thursday and returns to the Assembly for a final vote on amendments.

 

The Associated Press

 

 

Peter

_________________________