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

Re: Poll text call: final text by 28 September

From: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:48:36 -0400
Message-ID: <50699F34.3030501@cdt.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Setting aside the question of what the time period should be . . .

Nick, my edit was suggested in part to address the aggregate reporting 
issue given that it seems like there is momentum toward removing it as a 
dedicated permitted use.  There is a separate debate about what 
constitutes unlinking after 6 weeks, but my language would allow the use 
of log data to generate aggregate reports without unlinking during the 
initial 6 weeks after collection.

Aleecia, yes, fine with making clear that you can share with first party 
or service provider.

Justin Brookman
Director, Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
tel 202.407.8812
fax 202.637.0969
justin@cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org
@CenDemTech
@JustinBrookman

On 9/30/2012 7:43 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com 
> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>> wrote:
>
>> My only question on Justin's text below is about the wording 
>> "communication to a third party" -- that suggests communication to a 
>> first party or a service provider is permissible. I think the intent 
>> is "communication to another party." If so, is that an acceptable 
>> change?
>>
>> Nick, in particular: does Justin's language capture what you had 
>> intended?
>
> I don't think so, and I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind 
> that change. I was picking up on the suggestion from Vincent that uses 
> during the short-term logging period would be simply making data 
> unlinkable or any of the existing permitted uses. Creating an 
> additional sub-list of practices allowed or prohibited during the 
> short-term period seems like unnecessary confusion. Also, are there 
> any additional uses that the group wishes to allow during the 
> short-term period beyond the existing permitted uses and making data 
> unlinkable? If so, what are those uses and why wouldn't those uses be 
> part of the list of permitted uses?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org 
>> <mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would expand Option 1 to say (something like):
>>>
>>> Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a 
>>> third-party context for up to 6 weeks. During this time, operators 
>>> may render data unlinkable (as described above), perform processing 
>>> of the data for any of the other permitted uses, or perform any 
>>> other processing that does not result in the transfer of information 
>>> related to the particular user or communication to a third party, or 
>>> alteration of the user's individual experience.
>>>
>>> (I believe this is more consistent with Ian's original formulation, 
>>> though it's possible he has since changed his mind.  Obviously, as 
>>> David Wainburg points out, this language is contingent upon the 
>>> scope permitted uses and the definition of whatever replaces 
>>> unlinkable.)
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *From:*Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com
>>>     <http://aleecia.com/>]
>>>     *To:*public-tracking@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>(public-tracking@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>) [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:tracking@w3.org>]
>>>     *Sent:*Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:20:57 -0500
>>>     *Subject:*Poll text call: final text by 28 September
>>>
>>>     From the call on 12 September, we discussed topics where we have
>>>     increasing clarity on options for permitted uses. I want to make
>>>     sure we have the text right to reflect our options prior to
>>>     doing a decision process with a poll calling for objections,
>>>     which is responsive to Ian's feedback. We also want to move
>>>     quickly, as Roy suggests.
>>>
>>>     Please propose specific alternative text if you believe that the
>>>     two texts given below do not reflect the options before us by
>>>     Friday, 28 September. We will briefly review these texts on the
>>>     call tomorrow, just to make sure no one misses anything, and
>>>     here we are on the mailing list, for those who cannot make the call.
>>>
>>>     Aleecia
>>>
>>>     -----
>>>     Log files: issue-134
>>>     ----
>>>
>>>     This normative text fits into the section on Third Party
>>>     Compliance, subsection 6.1.1.1, Short Term Collection and Use,
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#short-term>.
>>>     We will also want non-normative text, and have some suggested,
>>>     but that will be clearer once we have the normative text
>>>     settled. (Options for definitions of unlinkable data are in
>>>     section 3.6, Unlinkable Data,
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-unlinkable>.)
>>>
>>>     Option 1:
>>>     Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a
>>>     third-party context for up to 6 weeks. During this time,
>>>     operators may render data unlinkable (as described above) or
>>>     perform processing of the data for any of the other permitted uses.
>>>
>>>     Option 2:
>>>     Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a
>>>     third-party context. They MUST provide public transparency of
>>>     their data retention period, which MUST have a specific time
>>>     period (e.g. not infinite or indefinite.) During this time,
>>>     operators may render data unlinkable (as described above) or
>>>     perform processing of the data for any of the other permitted uses.
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 13:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:35 UTC