- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:36:16 -0700
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Cc: "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> On Mar 16, 2015, at 15:08 , Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org> 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