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

Re: Poll text call: final text by 28 September

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:49:46 -0400
Message-ID: <5066298A.7070803@networkadvertising.org>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
CC: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
John,

It might be helpful to provide your basis for suggesting the two week 
period as a viable option.

-David


On 9/28/12 6:33 PM, John Simpson wrote:
> Aleecia,
>
> I would offer this option:
>
> Option 3:
>
> Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a third-party 
> context for up to TWO 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
>
> ----------
> 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 <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:12 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
>
>> Aleecia,
>>
>> In reviewing this to provide feedback, it occurs to me that it relies 
>> on the definition of unlinkable, which is still very much up for 
>> debate. How can companies weigh in on these options without 
>> understanding what the requirements actually are? We should postpone 
>> this poll until we define unlinkable so that companies can give 
>> realistic feedback regarding the time and effort needed to meet the 
>> requirements.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 9/25/12 6:20 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 Friday, 28 September 2012 22:50:18 UTC

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