W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:21:35 +0100
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <1915354.tFIcP2X0X6@hegel>
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 09:29:59 Shane Wiley wrote:
>  I would expect each company to minimize their data retention for this
> business purpose to come in-line with their demonstrated need for the
> data.  AKA - minimization standard which is unique and specific to each
> company.

I have trouble understanding where the standard is when each company has their 
own. 

Given the absence of a standard the current incentives have let us to a 
situation where those who collect the most data will earn the most money. And 
given this fact, having no standard and no limits, the only thing left is a 
use limitation on collected tracking data against all incentives.

Everything can be expressed by a mere use limitation and I know that some 
defend that model in the US. I do not have the feeling that relying solely on 
use limitations is a possible consensus. But I think even the industry can 
gain from some smart data minimization strategies. Data still has a cost, 
especially if it has to be maintained at a certain quality and is not just a 
mere data-graveyard where you don't know if something is actually correct or 
not. 

The suggestion is to get some more intelligence in frequency capping with 
DNT=1 and not just lay back and do use limitation while tracking as usual. 

I agree that this is a hard nut to crack

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:22:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC