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

Re: Poll text call: final text by 28 September

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:32:07 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14B36E54-70B4-4FE9-A0DA-2FBEF5021BAA@aleecia.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Hi John,

Ah, yes - Nick offered both normative and non-normative text, plus diffs. You are looking at the non-normative companion text to Option 1 below. 

We will get the substance nailed down first, then add the appropriate non-normative text after we know where what we will require.

If this still does not make sense, we can talk through it on the call.

	Aleecia

On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:55 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> Aleecia,
> 
> I'm confused here. I was under the impression that the Compliance Spec was being stabilized as of Sept. 14.  I wanted to see these options in context and discovered neither were listed in 6.1.1.1 and that the document is dated Sept. 23.  The option that is there is:
> 
> "Information may be collected and used any purpose, so long as the information is retained for no longer than N weeks and the information is not transmitted to a third party and the information is not used to build a profile about a user or otherwise alter any individual's user experience (apart from changes that are made based on aggregate data or security concerns)."
> 
> Is that mean to be a placeholder for one of the two options you've listed?
> 
> If neither option is satisfactory, should we offer new language?
> 
> Best,
> John
> 
> ----------
> John M. Simpson
> Consumer Advocate
> Consumer Watchdog
> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
> Santa Monica, CA,90405
> Tel: 310-392-7041
> Cell: 310-292-1902
> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
> john@consumerwatchdog.org
> 
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> 
>>> 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 Wednesday, 26 September 2012 04:32:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC