RE: [projectvrm] Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race - Motherboard

["Mike O'Neill" < >]

I did not see if thus had been posted here yet, but it is the DPAs (Article 
29 Working Party) response to the ePrivacy Regulation proposal. This is 
before the European parliament (who are very influenced by Article 29's 
output) now, aiming for a vote in October, so it can become law in May 2018 
when the GDPR will apply. 

http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=44103

They are calling for mandatory DNT.



-----Original Message-----
From: Doc Searls 
[mailto:
 ]
 
Sent: 16 April 2017 20:55
To: Aurelie Pols 
<
 >
Cc: Tim Walters 
<
 >;
 John @ BB 
<
 >;
 ProjectVRM list 
<
 >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Princeton’s Ad-Blocking Superweapon May Put an End 
to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race - Motherboard


> On Apr 16, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Aurelie Pols 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> Can I ask a silly question?

Sure. But this one isn’t silly.

> When you say "Motivation on the corporate side for agreeing with these 
> terms is compliance with the GDPR.", which part of the GDPR is referred to 
> exactly? I'm curious about the various interpretations that are circulating 
> and how "corporations" are indeed motivated, certainly as ePrivacy is still 
> in discussion.
> Please enlighten me ;-) muchisimas gracias
> Aurélie

This part: 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation#Sanctions> 

Or, from the law itself: 
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679#d1e6226-1-1>

Companies wishing to comply with the GDPR will continue to work on their own 
privacy-assuring schemes, of course, and that’s cool. What we’re offering 
here is the beginning of something new: individuals taking the lead in 
helping companies deal with a compliance issue that has at least some of 
those companies scared, and therefore willing to do new things.

Doc

> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Doc Searls 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 16, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Tim Walters 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Nice. But what we really need is a superweapon that blocks tracking.
> 
> We’re working on one at Customer Commons, with help from the Cyberlaw 
> Clinic at Harvard and working groups at Kantara. The weapon is terms we can 
> assert as first parties that sites and services can agree to as second 
> parties. Those terms can, and will, involve requirements restricting or 
> preventing tracking.
> 
> Motivation on the corporate side for agreeing with these terms is 
> compliance with the GDPR.
> 
> The latter was the subject of an earlier thread here, and both topics will 
> be up front at VRM Day and IIW. Register here:
> 
> http://bit.ly/vrmday2017a
> https://iiw24.eventbrite.com/
> 
> To be clear, blocking tracking directly will also be on the table. Hope 
> developers of those will be there as well. (We had Privacy Badger folks 
> last time.)
> 
> Doc
> 
>> Most of the ads can stay as far as I'm concerned. I just ignore them. 
>> 
>> tw
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:11 PM, John @ BB 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/princetons-ad-blocking-superweapon-may-put-an-end-to-the-ad-blocking-arms-race
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> [Powered by an iSomethingOrOther]
>> +1 808 344 2914
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Aurélie Pols
> 
> Skype: aurelie.pols
> Mobile: + 34 630 687 112