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

Re: action-190

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:31:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8cQ+G7sxJ=wt7yNXdu+4vGQ1cUh8Pcoh4c=vBbCETu4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Thanks for the summary Aleecia. What you describe as "C" around allowed
uses is the thing that I'm having trouble figuring out how we pull off.
Presumably, once the logs are processed and in their final resting place,
you have to be able to stand up to an audit / inquiry of some sort. "prove
to me you're honoring whatever commitments you made w.r.t. DNT". If we have
strict requirements from time zero " a data collector MUST NOT use the data
for purposes other than those allowed outside of the six week period." then
what have we gained? If I have to be able to make the same assertions from
time zero that I would have to make at time t+6wk, then it seems like there
is no benefit to the six week period at all, it is fundamentally no
different from the period after six weeks as best as I can tell.

What I was trying to achieve was to say "Look, during this six week period,
you have some time to get the data into a form or a system that meets the
requirements of DNT."

I think it's instructive for people to think about how an audit might work
/ what it might imply. I don't mean to suggest that this group write audit
requirements or guidelines, but merely think whether what we're proposing
is actually implementable.

-Ian

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>wrote:

> In the midst of writing the agenda for tomorrow I realized I was spending
> too much space on log files and should pull this out into a different
> message.
>
> To go back to the point of this issue, we are tying to find a way to give
> companies flexibility when they do not yet know what data they hold in a
> log file. We are trying to find a path such that they do not have to
> operate in real-time, with all of the engineering challenges entailed.
>
> We have proposed text from Ian, which we discussed on the 9 May conference
> call. We ran into a few issues on the call:
>
> A. People not supporting Ian's text simply because they had not reviewed
> it. At this point there has been AMPLE time for review. We shall not have
> that issue again tomorrow.
>
> B. Confusion that Ian's proposal applies to first parties.
> - My read is that some of this confusion stems from the mistaken notion
> that data after six weeks must be discarded, as opposed to processed. We
> may need to clarify the text to make that clear if that confusion is
> wide-spread. We can talk about this on the call if needed.
> - As Roy points out, at the moment log files are written, it may not be
> clear if data are first- or third-party unless we want to insist on
> real-time processing, which is part of what we're trying to avoid in the
> first place. As such, any party that _could_ be collecting log file data as
> a third-party will run into wanting time to process their logs.
>
> SUGGESTION: we add additional text to point out that for those who know
> they are always only first parties, they can do as they like with log file
> data so long as they are in compliance with other first party data
> practices. That will be the end result either way, but we can make this
> clearer I think.
>
> C. Confusion around the notion of processing a log file as a one-time or
> multi-time event. The consensus we had in DC assumed processing as a
> one-time event: we were working on something like "you may hold log file
> data for a short time until you process it, at which time the data must
> then comply with DNT rules for you." What we have since heard from Ian is
> that log processing is something that happens on a rolling basis. We then
> started down a path of complexity of what would, or would not be, permitted
> uses for log file data, and that created a new wave of confusion and
> frustration. This led to a counter-proposal from Vincent (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0171.html)
> of:
> Similarly, a data collector MUST NOT use the data for purposes other than
> those allowed outside of the six week period.
>
> SUGGESTION: we adopt Vincent's change, which simplifies much.
>
> We might also refer to the rest of the text for details on the fraud use
> rather than attempt to characterize it here, and illustrate more clearly
> that this is not a block on first parties. Specifically, we might tighten
> the original text of:
> As examples, a data collector MAY use the raw data within a six week
> period to debug their system, a data collector MAY use the raw data within
> the six week period to build a profile of a user fraudulently or
> maliciously accessing the system for purposes such as blocking access to
> the system by that user, but the data collector MUST NOT build a profile to
> serve targeted advertisements based on the user's past six weeks of
> browsing activity.
>
> to:
> As examples, a data collector MAY use the raw data within a six week
> period for a permitted use like <link>fraud prevention</link> or to create
> reports with <link>unidentifiable data</link>, but a third party data
> collector MUST NOT build a profile to serve targeted advertisements based
> on the user's past six weeks of browsing activity.
>
> Here's how that all rolls up together:
>
> Protocol data, meaning data that is transmitted by a user agent, such as a web browser, in the process of requesting content from a provider, explicitly including items such as IP addresses, cookies, and request URIs, MAY be stored for a period of 6 weeks in a form that might not otherwise satisfy the requirements of this specification. For instance, the data may not yet be reduced to the subset of information allowed to be retained for permitted uses (such as fraud detection), and technical controls limiting access to the data for permitted uses may not be in place on things like raw logs data sitting on servers waiting for processing and aggregation into a centralized logs storage service.
>
> Within this six week period, a data collector MUST NOT share data with other parties in a manner that would be prohibited outside of the six week period. Similarly, a data collector MUST NOT use the data for purposes other than would be allowed outside of the six week period. As examples, a data collector MAY use the raw data within a six week period for a permitted use like <link>fraud prevention</link> or to create reports with <link>unidentifiable data</link>, but a third party data collector MUST NOT build a profile to serve targeted advertisements based on the user's past six weeks of browsing activity.
>
> After the six week period has passed, all other requirements of the DNT specification apply.
>
> Let's talk this through on the call and get this closed tomorrow.
>
> Aleecia
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 23:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC