- From: Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:09:44 +0000
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B400AD156CAF3E4680360A8988DCC975450BBF1C@MBX022-E1-NJ-6.exch022.domain.local>
>> Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote... >> >> When folks take a minute to read the bill text, it's definitely better characterized as a "do not track transparency" bill: >> >> http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=4a3ff3d45dd6836ef40ab918b267 In order to fully understand what just happened… you also have to 'take a minute to read' the body of law that this new legislation is UPDATING. The very first line of this new legislation says... "An act to amend Section 22575 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to consumers." The California Business and Professions Code (CBPC) CHAPTER 22. INTERNET PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS .................... 22575-22579 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000&file=22575-22579 This new "Do Not Track" legislation has TEETH. >From the moment it was sponsored by California State Attorney General Kamala Harris and introduced as AB 370 in the California Assembly by Al Muratsuchi, the goal was to enhance CONSUMER protection and rights, and this Bill moved through both houses of the legislature with that presumption and was reviewed by all the relevant Consumer Protection Committees and both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. You can argue whether or not this is just 'transparency' legislation ( and even that aspect alone is a GOOD thing ) but the truth is that a CONSUMER in California now has the right to 'register a complaint' with the State Attorney General and SHE now has the authority to subpoena records in relation to that complaint and 'investigate' the situation. It would be during her 'investigation' that the truth can come out. If a site says it is 'Honoring DNT:1 signals from Browsers' then it is implied that it is also NOT "Tracking a user across sites" ( as defined in AB 370 ). If the State Attorney General decides that is a 'false and misleading statement' ( according to her investigation and other applicable regulations in the California Business and Professions Code ) then she can also decide that a violation of AB 370 has taken place and the appropriate fines applied ( $2,500 per offense, according to AB 370 and the CBPC ). So the "Horses have left the barn", so to speak. It really doesn't matter what the TPWG comes up with at this point. Even if there is (someday) a (voluntary) W3C standard that (supposedly) defines what "Do Not Track" really means... the California State Attorney General now has the power to respond to any/all complaints from CONSUMERS in her State and make up her own mind about it via an 'investigation'. I imagine this scenario is going to repeat itself in other states. State Attorneys General usually always reserve the right to make up their own minds about what constitutes 'Consumer Protection' in their own jurisdictions, regardless of any codified 'voluntary standards'. It should also be noted that on several previous occasions, when it comes to CONSUMER rights on the Web... California legislation has 'led the way' and became the model for new Federal level regulations and codes of conduct. There is every indication that is about to happen again. The official motto of the State of California is "Eureka! I found it!". Many times... what has started in California has become 'the law of the land'. Yours Kevin Kiley From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:31:53 -0700 This is my read. It will be an opportunity for some publishers to make privacy (and the disclosure) part of the their value proposition and differentiation. I also think that Peters assessment below is somewhat correct, we are finding both regulators (as well as technology solutions) have decided to lead frog the W3C. From: Dobbs, Brooks [mailto:Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:29 AM To: Peter Cranstone; ifette@google.com Cc: Jonathan Mayer; Jeff Jaffe; Kevin Kiley; public-tracking@w3.org; peter@peterswire.net; rigo@w3.org; tlr@w3.org; Joseph Lorenzo Hall Subject: Re: Consumer Watchdog Calls On Gov. Brown To Sign 'Do Not Track' Legislation, But Cautions Law Is Only A Step Towards Knowledge, Not Full Consumer Power Actually, unless I am really missing something here (possible) it expressly does NOT define DNT but rather requires the operator to disclose how they are interpreting it. It would seemingly be okay for an operator to say, "when I see DNT:1 I send the data to /dev/null on even seconds and record it to granite on odd seconds". It is the disclosure that is required not a specific compliance requirement. -Brooks Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the Wunderman Network (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com This email - including attachments - may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender immediately and delete the message. From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:16 PM To: "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com> Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "peter@peterswire.net" <peter@peterswire.net>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "tlr@w3.org" <tlr@w3.org>, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Subject: Re: Consumer Watchdog Calls On Gov. Brown To Sign 'Do Not Track' Legislation, But Cautions Law Is Only A Step Towards Knowledge, Not Full Consumer Power Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org> Resent-Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:17 PM A) Because they defined it B) Because they're not waiting for the W3C anymore As I've said before - DNT is already the defacto standard. When the vote is 78-0 it should tell you something, especially when those are politicians voting. The W3C just got moved to second place in the process. It shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone, Senator Rockefeller has told everyone that either you come up with something or he will - well CA just did. And all without one dissenting vote. Shows you what can be done when there's a will to get it done. Peter _________________________ Peter J. Cranstone From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com> Reply-To: "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:03 AM To: "Peter J. Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com> Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "peter@peterswire.net" <peter@peterswire.net>, "rigo@w3.org" <rigo@w3.org>, "tlr@w3.org" <tlr@w3.org>, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Subject: Re: Consumer Watchdog Calls On Gov. Brown To Sign 'Do Not Track' Legislation, But Cautions Law Is Only A Step Towards Knowledge, Not Full Consumer Power How someone is supposed to declare that they comply with something we have been unable to define for years is beyond me... On Aug 28, 2013 5:48 AM, "Peter Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com> wrote: What's fascinating is that the moment an 'operator of a website or service' tries to comply with this law and they elect to say that they 'DO honor DNT: 1 headers from browsers'… that opens them up to a situation where they may, in fact, have to prove that to the California State Attorney General. The alternative is to go on the 'shame' list and say that you do NOT honor DNT signals. Either way CA just essentially forced every web site to update their Privacy Policy's, and if they do support DNT then also open themselves up to proving that they do. Better Privacy through Transparency - and that's a good thing. Peter _________________________ Peter J. Cranstone From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:19 AM To: Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "jeff@w3.org" <jeff@w3.org>, "tlr@w3.org" <tlr@w3.org>, "peter@peterswire.net" <peter@peterswire.net>, "rigo@w3.org" <rigo@w3.org>, "jmayer@stanford.edu" <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "Peter J. Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com> Subject: Re: Consumer Watchdog Calls On Gov. Brown To Sign 'Do Not Track' Legislation, But Cautions Law Is Only A Step Towards Knowledge, Not Full Consumer Power When folks take a minute to read the bill text, it's definitely better characterized as a "do not track transparency" bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=4a3ff3d45dd6836ef40ab918b267 best, Joe Joseph Lorenzo Hall Senior Staff Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology https://www.cdt.org/ On Aug 27, 2013, at 19:11, Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com> wrote: >> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/prnewswire/press_releases/California/2013/08/27/DC69861?r=full >> >> 71 - 0 That article actually misreports the final vote yesterday in the California Assembly. It was actually 78-0 in favor of this "Do Not Track" legislation. That makes all the floor votes on this "Do Not Track" Bill *unanimous* from the first time it was voted on in the Assembly ( 73-0 ) to the recent Senate floor vote ( 37-0 ) and now the final approval of amendments added by the Senate by the originating house ( 78-0 ). >From 'soup to nuts'... every lawmaker has voted 'Yes' to this "Do Not Track" legislation, and it is now on the Governor's desk ( and he has already said he is ready to sign it into LAW ). >From the official legislation tracking site... http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_370 <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_370&sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update> &sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update [snip] DATE: 05/02/2013 LOCATION: ASSEMBLY - FLOOR MOTION: AB 370 MURATSUCHI Assembly Third Reading (AYES: 73. NOES: 0. Absent, Vacancy, Abstaining or Not Voting: 7 ) (PASS) DATE: 08/22/2013 LOCATION: SENATE - FLOOR MOTION: Assembly 3rd Reading AB370 Muratsuchi By Padilla (AYES 37. NOES: 0. Absent, Vacancy, Abstaining or Not Voting: 3 ) (PASS) DATE: 08/26/2013 LOCATION: ASSEMBLY FLOOR MOTION: AB 370 MURATSUCHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments (AYES 78. NOES: 0. Absent, Vacancy, Abstaining or Not Voting: 2 ) (PASS) Bill sent to Governor for signature 08/26/13. [/snip]
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 21:10:14 UTC