Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain

On 2016-07-18 00:57, Lee Tien wrote:
> EFF has been unengaged in the WG for a few years now, because we
> didn’t think there was enough interest in DNT by all stakeholders, so
> we developed our own tool (Privacy Badger) that is consistent with our
> principles.

Like EFF, I haven't been engaged much with the WG in the last two years. 
But like Rob, I think wrapping it up now is very likely to turn out as 
unfortunately timed. With the GDPR entering into force within two years 
(and it contains a provision specifically meant for DNT) and the 
upcoming review of the e-Privacy Directive, this WG may very well turn 
out to be more relevant than its participants have thought lately. Even 
without overwhelming adoption of the DNT mechanism so far, the uptake of 
ad blockers show that the days of an unfettered predatory advertising 
ecosystem come to an end. DNT may very well be a piece in solving the 
puzzle of how to deal with consent instead of running roughshod over 
end-users interests.

> I also do not understand the present status of ad-blocking under EU
> law (I know there was a recent decision but don’t know what it said).

There has been no decision under EU law. There have been decisions under 
German law. And for the most part those decisions say that ad-blocking 
is fine. Some cases revolve around the rather dodgy business model of 
Eyeo. Which interestingly enough is partnering for Flattr to introduce 
microtransactions as an alternative to ads.

> But our position is that these two points—that the EU is in a
> transition, and that ad-blocking is increasing industry interest in
> DNT—if valid, could well justify continued work by the WG.  Curious
> what others think.

It corresponds to my line of thinking.

Regards,

  Walter

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 07:08:13 UTC