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

Re: definitions

From: Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 03:42:03 +0000
To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: "rigo@w3.org" <rigo@w3.org>, "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>
Message-ID: <B400AD156CAF3E4680360A8988DCC9752C270DAC@MBX022-E1-NJ-6.exch022.domain.local>
> Björn Höhrmann wrote...
>
> > * Kevin Kiley wrote:
> > What I am NOT seeing in any of the published TPWG drafts ( or on the public mailing list,
> > or the reports coming out of the Seattle F2F ) is any discussion about what happens
> > when a site/server that is reporting DNT Compliance is not 'purging' any tracking data that
> > it has ALREADY 'collected' for individual (identifiable) users,
>
> See http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/71 and grep
> for "ISSUE-71" in the compliance draft.

Thank you, Björn!

I honestly just totally 'missed' all that.

So there is, in fact, no REQUIREMENT for any 'server/service' that says it is DNT compliant to
PURGE anything at all that it may have accumulated prior to it beginning to receive DNT signals.

It (conditionally) 'MUST' stop 'collecting and associating' (data) to remain DNT compliant, but as
for anything it already has (collected) for an (identifiable) user there is only this...

[snip]

The entity MAY take additional steps with respect to previously collected DNXT data such as
deleting data before its usual expiration. However, as DNT signal affects only HTTP request that
it accompanies and may be modified by the user, it is not recommended that special deletion
take place without some notice to user(s).

[/snip]

I'm not sure if that is going to match the 'expectations' of users but since the issue
has been asked/discussed/answered and is now CLOSED as far as this spec is concerned,
it doesn't matter what I think.

However... minor point(s)...

Are there some typos in there ( like DNXT? ) and some missing determiners/articles
like 'a DNT signal' and 'the HTTP request'?

Shouldn't it read more like this...

The entity MAY take additional steps with respect to previously collected DNT data such as
deleting data before its usual expiration. However, as a DNT signal affects only the HTTP request that
it accompanies and may be modified by the user, it is not recommended that special deletion
take place without some notice to user(s).

Regards
Kevin
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 03:42:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:31 UTC