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 21:49:31 +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: <2214381.Mf3gysFRxc@hegel>
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 12:33:32 Shane Wiley wrote:
> EU law requires each company retain data only for as long as it's needed for
> the intended purpose for which it was acquired.  This in essence is the
> minimization principle - and is tied to each company's unique and
> individual business models.

US law doesn't. So you would suggest DNT would following the finality principle 
for the frequency capping. This has actually not only one implication but two. 
You indicated only one in your previous email. 
The first implication, as you said, is that data is only kept as long as 
necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. But the second 
implication is as important: collect only the data that is absolutely needed 
for the intended purpose. And I think some of the researchers here debate 
whether all the collection is really needed for frequency capping. 

Why is it so important to have the capping during the entire add campaign? 
Ninja said "per session" as users don't remember after one or two days anyway. 

Best, 

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:50:05 UTC

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