RE: Another agenda item for Boston

Rigo,

I'm not adverse to the conversation - my concern is more timing and prioritization for the single day we have for TPE discussion on Wednesday.  I believe we're making considerable progress here and we should continue to be thoughtful and rigorously efficient with our time to discuss bigger picture issues with our time together.  When you layer this on top of the fact many people will be departing mid-day Wednesday for travel, this puts that much more pressure on the agenda.  So let's please continue the conversation around Mike's EU specific API solution, but do that during a weekly call or via email.  

My opinion only of course, but hopefully we all want to extract the upmost value out of the f2f (that is quickly becoming a very long phone call for many) and not be distracted by market specific discussions with our limited time.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 6:35 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Kimon Zorbas; Mike O'Neill; Shane Wiley; 'Mike O'Neill'; 'Peter Swire'; 'Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)'; rob@blaeu.com
Subject: Re: Another agenda item for Boston

Kimon, 

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. 

Rigo

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 16:31:39 UTC