Re: ISSUE-16, ACTION-166: define (data) collection

On May 25, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> I wonder if you could live with the removal of " or in a form that remains 
> linkable to a specific user, user agent, or device." because this imports 
> the entire "what is identified and identifiable" into the definition of 
> "collection". 
> 
> I want to have the discussion about what is identifiable in my retained data 
> in a separate bucket outside of the collection issue. Could that work. I 
> don't mind the discussion, I just find the place to have it confusing. 

I wrote it that way because the term is being used, both in our
specs and in the regulatory discussions, with the assumption that
the data collected is about the user (or some proxy for the user,
like their personal device).  I agree that it is confusing, but if
we make it general then we need to visit all places it is used
and make them more specific.

If we go completely general, there is no need for a definition:
data collection is the process of collecting data, where
collecting is defined by any dictionary.

 http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/collect%5B1%5D

That's fine with me.  It is far better than what is proposed in
the current spec.  But it is a bit misleading to say that we are
constraining data collection in general.

As I said, "data collection" in regulatory and privacy concerns
is very specific to human studies research.  I think that is
closer to what we are trying to constrain.

I think it would be better to have a term for
"data that remains associated with a specific user, user agent,
or device" (e.g., DASU) and then constrain DASU collection
and DASU retention.  But it also makes me gag a bit.

....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 07:41:09 UTC