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

Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:32:45 -0800
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <8DA2D21D-1A19-4D5B-B4C8-684408269718@stanford.edu>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Rigo,

I don't follow - could you please try rephrasing?

Thanks,
Jonathan

On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> Jonathan, Roy, 
> 
> On Wednesday 07 March 2012 12:16:50 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> I (and, as I understand it, quite a few others in the group) favor a
>>> blanket third-party collection/retention/use limitation, with an
>>> exception for information that could not be used to correlate browsing
>>> activity and an exception for protocol information.  (There are, of
>>> course, some fine details we might not agree on.  For example: What
>>> does a server have to do if the client sends an old ID cookie?  A "hi,
>>> here's my SSN" cookie?  What does a server have to do over time with
>>> protocol information?)
>> Please understand that those aren't exceptions.  They are contradictions.
>> We cannot protect against fraud and simultaneously blanket-prohibit
>> collection.  We can prohibit use for tracking and retention beyond what
>> is necessary for the fraud/legal/security exemptions.
> 
> IMHO, your dispute here is a red herring. If even the ePrivacy Directive 
> allows for protocol chatter for security  and normal  interactions, we 
> shouldn't go beyond that here. See Article 6 Jonathan:
> http://eur-
> lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002L0058:20091219:EN:HTML
> 
> So the best is the enemy of the good here. I still think we can reach 
> consensus on a definition. 
> 
> Rigo
> 
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:33:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC