W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Proposed California Law affecting DNT

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:47:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8co+nEq1yqDUKV30wvuh16Aup1i5sACO2U=rTbT4N4BDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
And how does one contact an actual user given an ip? That ip could be a nat
with 50 computers behind it, or 5000. And its not like you can just call up
an ip and say "please tell the user I have a great offer for them..." so
I'm really not sure in what context this is used to contact a user, unlike
an email address or phone number...
On Mar 28, 2013 7:10 PM, "John Simpson" <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> AG's folks tell me their interpretation is broader than traditional PII.
> Item 6 is:
>
> "(6) Any other identifier that permits the physical or online contacting
> of a specific individual."
> They say they they understand that provision to include an IP address and
> a device ID.
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> Two thoughts,
>
> 1, it seems the language of the bill is a bit confused around who is doing
> what, specifically it talks about the first party honoring the request to
> not "track", with an added obligation to explicitly call out the special
> circumstance where the website somehow enforces restrictions on third
> parties (by technical or contractual means?!)
>
> 2, hey, it defines tracking! And the tracking seems to be defined as the
> collection of PII such as name, email, or social security number
> (specifically defined on page 3 line 19 forward).
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:53 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>wrote:
>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> The California Attorney General is sponsoring a bill that could be of
>> interest to our working group. It is AB 370 introduced by Assemblyman Al
>> Muratsuchi.  I've attached it as a PDF file.  I'm not sure that the current
>> language exactly accomplishes what the AG's office tells me is their
>> intent, but here is what I was told they want to do:
>>
>> The bill would amend existing California law requiring privacy policies
>> to require that a commercial website would have to include in its privacy
>> policy whether or not it honors a Do-Not-Track message.  The intent, I was
>> told, is to increase transparency and shift some of the responsibility for
>> Do Not Track on to consumer-facing 1st party sites.
>>
>> The idea is that a 1st party website could not claim it honored Do Not
>> Track if it allowed or knew it had 3rd parties on its site that engaged in
>> tracking.
>>
>> The bill offers this definition of tracking:
>>
>> "The term "online tracking" means the practice of collecting personally
>> identifiable information about and individual consumer's online activities
>> over time and across different Web sites and online services."
>>
>> I thought you would be interested.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>> ---------
>>   John M. Simpson
>> Privacy Project Director
>> Consumer Watchdog
>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>> Santa Monica, CA, 90405
>>  Tel: 310-392-7041
>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/>
>> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 02:48:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC