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

Re: ACTION-326 and ACTION-327 BLOCKED on ISSUE-5

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:54:11 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Message-ID: <1730286.Qpl8jAklug@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Roy, 

On Monday 19 November 2012 04:45:38 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I do care about context and reasonable user expectations with
> regard to data sharing, and know for a fact that neither one
> can be cleanly delineated by Web technology.  Hence, my solution
> is to allow the human operators of sites to expand the context
> only if it is reasonably expected by the user.  In other words,
> if there is no technical means to bound the context, then we
> shouldn't even be trying -- just define what is not allowed
> to be shared outside the context and let regulators inform and
> enforce the boundaries of the context based on user expectations.

I hear from different sites that it is about context. May be a just 
made the assumption that "browsing the Web" is a meaningful 
delimiter. I'm simply afraid that a definition of tracking reduces 
the scope to red impair data packets at full moon and that we apply 
DNT:1 and the collection limitation only to those and collect 
everything else full throttle even in the presence of DNT:1. So the 
scope must be large as the permitted uses carve exceptions into that 
large scope. 

What would be your context description. I know mine was a bit short 
hand. But I'm not a protocol designer. So give me a hint what you 
mean and we can test if it is too narrow to let the entire rule-
system survive (no prob for EU as your definition is overruled by law 
anyway: it applies to all personal data)

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 22:54:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC