W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org > April 2001

Re: [Moderator Action] Policy Standard

From: James Wright <sirjames@jalyn.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:58:35 -0700
Message-ID: <001b01c0bb96$2810c4d0$bb8e1018@JALYN.NET>
To: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>
I was obviously a little irritated when writing that; but when you start
putting in parts for disputes and who to bring legal action against - give
me a break.  If I thought either were a possibility I'd leave it off or put
your name on it.

Sure, it's more convenient for all the unscrupulous sites who sell user
information to be able to post something that won't be actually read or
formatted in a confusing manner that visitors wouldn't understand it if they
did read it.

I see the point.  It's a great idea to do something that only 1% of all
webmasters are going to understand... that opens up a new market for you to
collect more information to sell!  And SPAMmers can now have my address and
phone number instead of just sucking off the email address!  What a great
concept!

Either the site collects information or it doesn't.  It sells off that
information or it doesn't.  Why should there be a "this page does but that
page doesn't"?  As it is, I'm still trying to figure out why sites which
encourages you to download something that's free would need your name,
telephone, address, date of birth, and everything else - even while
'claiming' that the information will not be shared with anyone else.

So let's let the browsers decide and give the crooks a few more years of
peace, right?

Our policy has always been that we don't keep or share any information -
it's used only for what you're submitting it for at the time.  Period.
Black and white is much better on this subject than 14 million shades of
gray; but when you intend to abuse, it makes more sense to write in as many
possibilities for loopholes as possible, isn't it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>
To: "James Wright" <sirjames@jalyn.com>
Cc: <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, 01 April, 2001 15:10
Subject: Re: [Moderator Action] Policy Standard


> Dear M. Wright,
>
> thank you for your comment. But I can't fully understand your
> remark. Could you please be more specific with your reproach,
> that P3P is making "a legal joke" out of privacy policies? Could
> you specify, why you think, not having a policy at all is better
> than keeping your policy?
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> Rigo Wenning            W3C/INRIA
> Policy Analyst          2004, Routes des Lucioles
> mail:rigo@w3.org        F-06902 Sophia Antipolis
> +33 (0)6 73 84 87 31    http://www.w3.org/
>
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 02:57:44PM -0400, James Wright wrote:
> > We've had policies posted since 1992 which we strictly abide by and over
the
> > years we've seen "pay" policy sites start out by using it.
> >
> > But after reading through the P3P standards, I think we will seriously
> > consider not having one at all.  You have succeeded in formally making
it a
> > legal joke.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 18:22:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:00 UTC