67
edits
Privacy/Policy/NTIA RFC: Difference between revisions
→Mozilla supports a process that is open and transparent while at the same time develops effective and meaningful codes of conduct.=
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
From our analysis, we would end up ranking privacy considerations for online services directed at teenagers as an ideal area for a code, given the maturity and number of accountable industry and public interest groups already working on kids privacy as a result of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Likewise, looking to codes in the area of collecting personal data via multiple technologies (e.g., cookies, LSOs and cache) is another area where we see technology standards groups being well positioned and public interest groups having substantial experience working together with business and consumers to be a potentially good area for a code of conduct. | From our analysis, we would end up ranking privacy considerations for online services directed at teenagers as an ideal area for a code, given the maturity and number of accountable industry and public interest groups already working on kids privacy as a result of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Likewise, looking to codes in the area of collecting personal data via multiple technologies (e.g., cookies, LSOs and cache) is another area where we see technology standards groups being well positioned and public interest groups having substantial experience working together with business and consumers to be a potentially good area for a code of conduct. | ||
===Mozilla supports a process that is open and transparent while at the same time develops effective and meaningful codes of conduct. | ===III. Mozilla supports a process that is open and transparent while at the same time develops effective and meaningful codes of conduct.=== | ||
====A. Open Participation==== | ====A. Open Participation==== | ||