- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:46:13 +0200
- To: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Cc: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sep 29, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <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? > > If we have agreement that Justin's edits are a better reflection, I suggest we also rework the second text option to mirror this as well, replacing only "6 weeks" with "They MUST provide public transparency of their data retention period, which MUST have a specific time period (e.g. not infinite or indefinite.)" to reflect the second view we have heard, and possibly replacing "6 weeks" with "2 weeks" for a third option if John continues with that path. Whether we pursue Justin/Ian's text for Option 1 or not, I don't think it makes sense to apply that text to Option 2. Applying a list of prohibited practices to data retained for any publicly stated time period would reverse the widespread agreement over the form of the Third Party Compliance section: a general prohibition with an enumerated (white) list of permitted uses. Thanks, Nick
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 11:47:10 UTC