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

Rob,

I don't believe there was an issue with the purpose array but more the
technical approach of how it was addressed in the TSR.

In either case, we'll need a purpose array for the ad industry to be able
to leverage DNT as a lawful consent compliance approach in the EU (at least
that's what EU lawyers are telling me).

No delay = no use
Some delay = higher probability of broad use

Again - I'm only speaking to the industry that was the original primary
target of the DNT standard.  There may still be some utility for companies
that only have a singular purpose in which they are requesting consent.

- Shane

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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 defines as
>> “tracking for targeted ads” may not match what site 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 and site 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
>
>


-- 
- Shane

Shane Wiley
VP, Privacy
Oath: A Verizon Company