Re: First party compliance

I'n sorry Susan, I don't understand your concern. Why wouldn't the standard allow a first party who was concerned about respecting a user's privacy concerns to invoke more restrictive practices and communicate that choice to the user? This simply says that a server can voluntarily opt to follow more privacy friendly practices than required and then communicate that fact. What's wrong with that?

On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:30 PM, "Israel, Susan" <Susan_Israel@Comcast.com> wrote:

> In Section 4, First Party Compliance, I think the third paragraph "(First parties may elect to follow third party practices.") should be deleted. 
> 
> I don't think it's meaningful and I think it's better to have one clear rule rather than offering different levels of compliance. 
> 
> Susan Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 03:09:18 UTC