Re: Another agenda item for Boston


I don't think a discussion will interfere with the difficult discussions 
in Brussels around DPR. I still think it is worthwhile to discuss Mike's 
suggestion in Boston in order to avoid that other parts of the TPE 
preclude the features/tools we need to record/express consent in the EU 
regime. The positive side (how those tools look like) should be done in 
the global considerations discussions. 

Having the discussion also IMHO does not preclude Walter's worst case of 
having un-throttled collection for pseudonyms or endangers the position 
of those who want that. You would still need the consent mechanism for 
premium services. 

So while I understand your concerns, I encourage us to find the courage 
to keep certain doors open. 


On Wednesday 06 February 2013 22:01:39 Kimon Zorbas wrote:
> European law is not about tracking, but as you elaborate further down
> about storing data on a device (so the E-Privacy Directive). I do not
> think W3C should be responding to legislation. However, if people
> want this (at least you support to agree on a DNT that implements the
> proposed EU data protection regulation), we should stall the process,
> until the law is adopted. You seem to suggest drafts proposed are
> sure to be accepted. But no one knows what the legislator will
> finally adopt. Just legislative history from hundreds of years of
> legislating.
> Also, see the example of NL, where a very tough opt-in was adopted to
> transpose the E-Privacy Directive and later the same politicians that
> went for this tough approach were asking to lighten its
> enforcement...
> I think the TPWG should focus on what we agree to achieve: find
> consensus for a workable DNT.

Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 11:35:30 UTC