RE: Comments on P3P WD Schema Stuff

OK well I think we mean the same thing then. I didn't mean that it could be
taken to mean "We may, but we may not - you never know - why not submit your
data and find out"
Perhaps people would feel happier if we changed the text as follows:

It should be noted that the use of a particular data element is NOT
 a request for that particular type of data, or a statement that the
 data is collected, rather a statement that in deciding whether to submit
one's data to a service, one should assume that all the stated types are
collected."




>**-----Original Message-----
>**From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
>**Sent: 07 March 2005 15:21
>**To: Giles Hogben
>**Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
>**Subject: Re: Comments on P3P WD Schema Stuff
>**
>**
>**Am Wednesday 23 February 2005 12:15 verlautbarte Giles Hogben :
>**> What is the difference between.
>**> "assume that all data is collected"
>**>  and
>**> "any data may be collected"
>**
>**The issue with this is, that from a risk perspective 
>**(client-side), they 
>**are the same for P3P. Unless you have a wallet within your 
>**P3P client, 
>**you may not know how and what they collect direct from you or from 
>**protocol information etc. 
>**
>**Additionally, it gives services to get away with a huge list of 
>**collections but hiding behind the "may". Saying, we collect race, 
>**political opinion, etc is different from saying: we may do 
>**that in some 
>**exceptional circumstances and we may (or may not) use it. In 
>**this case, 
>**you can't know what is collected and used as the "may" opens the can 
>**and everything "may" be collected, but P3P has rather to 
>**look into what 
>**is "actually" collected.
>**
>**>
>**> This is what I meant...
>**> This is a modal logic problem (the logic of possibility)
>**> See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#1
>**
>**Problem here is that marketing isn't always following those 
>**thoughts ;)
>**
>**Rigo
>**
>**

Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 14:33:36 UTC