Re: [TCS] comments on 17 Feb 2015 editors draft

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 15:08 , Nick Doty <> wrote:
>>> 7. Legal Compliance
>>>  Notwithstanding anything in this recommendation, a party MAY collect, use,
>>>  and share data required to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and
>>>  judicial processes.
>> I still think this section is silly, but *shrug* ... Normally, I would
>> expect such a party to be non-compliant due to powers that be, rather
>> than compliant by escape clause.
> I believe I am also in the *shrug* category on this particular point, but I believe we settled on this language because some people in the Working Group found it important and some people in the Working Group didn't care.

As I said before, I think we’re confusing two things here.

a) If laws, regulations or a judicial process force me to do something other than this compliance spec., should I do them?
   That’s the silly question: of course.

b) Having done what they require, can I still claim compliance with the specification?
   That’s what this paragraph seems to allow (‘MAY’). I think we should say nothing, or even have a track status for ‘he MADE me do it’. However, as we know, you can be forced to do something and also forced not to admit you are doing it.

I therefore tend to think that that ‘MAY’ above should be changed; ‘laws, regulations and judicial processes take precedence over this specification’ (you don’t say!)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 22:36:46 UTC