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

Re: ISSUE-5: definition of tracking

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:36:13 +0200
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <96dba4f41dc2f702f62ad533032fa531@xs4all.nl>


Roy T. Fielding schreef op 2012-09-05 10:29:

(...)

> I am trying to define tracking, not their worries.  If folks can
> talk about what the above does not cover, then we can look for some
> wording that plugs the gaps.  Or we can start with any of the four
> other definitions that I have proposed.  Or some new definition,
> if someone gets an inspiration.
>
> ....Roy

Hi Roy,

Two years ago I started with my own definition of tracking: 'The 
non-consensual collection or processing of data for the purpose of 
systematic monitoring or profiling of user’s habits across websites'. 
Since then my thinking has evolved.

Instead of continuing in a cacophony of what stakeholders think is 
tracking I propose the taxonomical approach. I propose to Take Soleve's 
taxonomy as a starting point. To me this makes sense, because it fits 
privacy violations and concerns.

A taxonomy arranges according to similaties in properties. See for 
example Solove [1] for a taxonomy:

[2]: "Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it 
means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from an 
embarrassment of meanings. Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide 
adjudication and lawmaking, as abstract incantations of the importance 
of privacy do not fare well when pitted against more concretely-stated 
countervailing interests. In 1960, the famous torts scholar William 
Prosser attempted to make sense of the landscape of privacy law by 
identifying four different interests. But Prosser focused only on tort 
law, and the law of information privacy is significantly more vast and 
complex, extending to Fourth Amendment law, the constitutional right to 
information privacy, evidentiary privileges, dozens of federal privacy 
statutes, and hundreds of state statutes. Moreover, Prosser wrote over 
40 years ago, and new technologies have given rise to a panoply of new 
privacy harms. A new taxonomy to understand privacy violations is thus 
sorely needed. This article develops a taxonomy to identify privacy 
problems in a comprehensive and concrete manner. It endeavors to guide 
the law toward a more coherent understanding of privacy and to serve as 
a framework for the future development of the field of privacy law."

The lesson learned from defining cloud computing, is that there are 
many definitions of what it may be. The same is with a defintion of 
privacy. Tracking suffers the same problem.

Mapping permitted uses to the taxonomy is possible.

Looking at David's approach, a strict core def, with exceptions for 
difficult cases, could fit into a topological approach.

--
Rob


[1] D. J. Solove. A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law 
Review, 154(3):477–560, Jan. 2005.
[2] http://www.citeulike.org/group/1598/article/1059403
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 09:39:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:33 UTC