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

Re: ACTION-75: Write-up a hybrid of Do Not Profile and Do Not Cross-Site Track

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:05:37 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <22523749.tumgqqF7Jc@hegel>
I concur JC, 

On Tuesday 07 February 2012 18:51:27 JC Cannon wrote:
> It seems that we are still conflating collection with receipt of logs by a
> server and processing of those logs for placement in a profile or
> otherwise.
> 
> I believe we all agreed that web servers must be able to receive logs in
> order for the Internet to work as it does. I would like to propose that the
> mere receipt of logs by a web server should not be considered collection or
> be constrained by the rules of collection.
> 
> However, any processing of the logs should be considered collection and be
> governed by our DNT standard.
> 
> Inasmuch as the logs will include a DNT signal, any retention policy that
> comes out of our standard should apply to those logs.
> 
Whereas 22 of the ePrivacy Directive says:

The prohibition of storage of communications and the related traffic data by 
persons other than the users or without their consent is not intended to 
prohibit any automatic, intermediate and transient storage of this information 
in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the 
transmission in the electronic communications network and provided that the 
information is not stored for any period longer than is necessary for the 
transmission and for traffic management purposes, and that during the period of 
storage the confidentiality remains guaranteed. Where this is necessary for 
making more efficient the onward transmission of any publicly accessible 
information to other recipients of the service upon their request, this 
Directive should not prevent such information from being further stored, 
provided that this information would in any case be accessible to the public 
without restriction and that any data referring to the individual subscribers 
or users requesting such information are erased.

As long as we talk about some defaults for retention and logging for the 
purpose of carrying out the communication, we shouldn't prevent logging. I 
think our task is beyond. We MAY give some hint when we believe those logs are 
not necessary anymore. 

So while writing logs is collection of data, we may declare normal web logs 
out of scope as long as they do not serve to build profiles and as long as they 
have some expiry set. (One may be as scared about logs that last forever then 
I would be scared about profile creation)

Consequently, a third party that is not in an outsourcing context may not 
collect data beyond normal web logs and should anonymize or erase those logs 
after 60 Days (just to throw in some arbitrary count) This would be my 
suggestion.

Best, 

Rigo
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC