- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:38:30 +0200
- To: "Justin Brookman" <jbrookman@cdt.org>
- Cc: "Amy Colando" <acolando@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Tue, October 21, 2014 23:22, Justin Brookman wrote: > No one spoke up for maintaining this language either on the list or on > last week’s call; if anyone wants to make a pitch for maintaining this > or other auditability language, please do so; otherwise, we’ll adopt > Jack’s proposal to remove the sentence. Catching up with the WG. And yes, I feel that it strongly contributes to the compliance standard's credibility if any access and use of data retained under permitted uses is auditable. I would be fine by restricting its auditability to data protection and/or consumer rights regulators or similar governmental entities. If you commit to limiting your use of certain personal data for certain circumscribed purposes, you create a burden of proof for yourself that you have indeed done so. Audit requirements can only be helpful in that regard. Regards, Walter
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 09:39:19 UTC