RE: Next 2 calls canceled (Oct 09 and Oct 16)

If the goal is to make transparency machine readable, I believe the TSR is designed to do this job. Unfortunately, the group decided earlier this year, not to go down the path of a purpose array in the TSR.

I am not convinced about the use case. Frankly, I believe the risk of slowing having to go back to CR again needs to be factored into the equitation.

Rob


-----Original message-----
From: Shane M Wiley
Sent: Thursday, October 12 2017, 7:22 pm
To: Aleecia M. McDonald
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Next 2 calls canceled (Oct 09 and Oct 16)

Aleecia,

I believe legally articulate purposes would be the same across all companies (for example, profiling with legal effect).  There are a host of specific purposes that are not directly addressed in GDPR/ePR so those will need more flexibility.

- Shane

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com> > wrote:
I think I understand Shane to suggest that these data use purposes all need to be custom per-site because what site foo.com <http://foo.com> defines as “tracking for targeted ads” may not match what site bar.com <http://bar.com> defines as tracking for targeted ads. Yes?

If this understanding is correct, I don’t see how DNT can support that use case in any way that leaves it at all useful to actual human users. There is no meaningful consent possible when users have to read all of the fine print every time — this becomes a sad farce.

I believe the motivation for this new work stems from EU purposes as defined by law (and later case law.) If so, there should not be a tremendous amount of daylight between what site foo.com <http://foo.com> and site bar.com <http://bar.com> mean by the same terms, since they are set by law / regulation / case law.

Am I missing something?

        Aleecia





-- 
- Shane

Shane Wiley
VP, Privacy
Oath: A Verizon Company