W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > December 2004

Fwd: non-identifiable element in human-readable translations

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:31:38 +0100
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <200412042031.39345.rigo@w3.org>

----------  [fwd]  ----------

Subject: [Moderator Action] non-identifiable element in human-readable 
Date: Friday 03 December 2004 17:52
From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@cs.cmu.edu>
To: 'public-p3p-spec' <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>

I have been talking to a company about their P3P policy and they have
raised some concerns about the IE6 and Netscape 7 human-readable
translation of their policy. Most of their concerns will be addressed
in future versions of these browsers if the P3P 1.1 guidelines are
followed. However, there is one concern that may not be fully addressed
by our guidelines, so we may want to tweak the guidelines a little.

The specific concern is that Netscape currently interprets the
non-identifiable element as: "No data is collected or no personally
identifiable data is collected by this web site." This company wants to
use the non-identifiable element in just one statement and does not
want to imply that it applies to their entire web site (as an aside, I
am discussing with them whether this is an accurate reflection of their
policies, I remain skeptical, but this remains a plausible use of the
non-identifiable element so we should deal with it).

In our P3P 1.1 draft, we suggest the following wording for
non-identifiable: We do not keep any information that could be used to
identify you  personally

The non-identifiable translation will be included within a statement,
so it might look something like this:

Browsing information

[ . . .]

Super secret information

- We do not keep any information that could be used to identify you

Other random information

[ . . .]

Is it obvious in the above example that the statement about not keeping
information applies only to super secret information? Or do we need to
change the wording to make this more clear? And if so... how? Note,
that this is more of a problem with the current Netscape wording and
the fact that Netscape does not currently include statement names.

Are there any other elements that raise similar scoping issues? I don't
think so, but we should look again.



Received on Saturday, 4 December 2004 23:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:19 UTC