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

Re: Graduated response (ACTION-279)

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:38:58 +0100
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <133de0131743da40c8859202dfa25ada@xs4all.nl>
Shane, Rigo,

The element of "unnecessary" is closely tied to the principle of 
purpose limitation.

Rob

Rigo Wenning schreef op 2012-11-01 00:10:
> Shane,
>
> IMHO, the data minimization principle and the purpose limitation we
> installed for permitted uses cut both ways. Only collect what is
> necessary and only keep it as long as you need it. So "graduate
> response" by saying I delete stuff that I don't need anymore is an
> expression of those principles.
> The issue is rather how much "more" will trigger the alarm bells of
> "unnecessary" collection. There is wiggle room and we can explore
> that. But I wouldn't assume we can disregard the collection
> limitation and just bet on the subsequent deletion. No easy answer
> there. Nick tries to put that in words. Not bad. What would you open
> up with which changes to Nick's wording?
>
> Rigo
>
> On Wednesday 31 October 2012 09:15:59 Shane Wiley wrote:
>> Would it be possible to look at “graduated response” in the
>> opposite direction as an element of data minimization?  Collect
>> more data up-front (security, debugging, frequency capping) and
>> move to less data where possible as a “graduated response”.  As I
>> stated in Amsterdam, attempting to operational-ize a technical
>> “graduated response” in the less->more sense is not a trivial
>> matter (if at all really possible in most circumstances), whereas
>> the opposite is much more doable.
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 06:39:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC