- From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:13:33 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org Mailing List" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
On 7/1/13 6:58 PM, David Singer wrote: > On Jul 1, 2013, at 14:56 , David Wainberg <david@appnexus.com> wrote: > >> Hi David- >> >> Is this also related to ISSUE-142? > Yes, though that's marked closed. I don't know why or when. I think I'm not alone in feeling I've lost track of the issue management. I don't recall this issue being particularly controversial, but others can speak up if I'm wrong about that. > >> I thought there'd been some agreement previously on a grace period for data retained only for a short period, and that such grace period would include more than merely processing it into an unregulated state. > What other uses do you envisage? I thought the rationale for the raw data exception was (a) that no-one can process the data in real time, there needs to be some holding period and (b) some people hold the raw data for a while 'just in case' (e.g. of a debugging need) but can process into what they need at that time and discard the rest. > > In neither case do I see a need to allow 'other use' than the ability to process, but if there is a (closed, non-leaky) one, it would be good to hear. Does it depend on the problem we're trying to solve? If the primary concern is, as some have said, to limit the accumulation of histories of users' online activity, then deleting or de-identifying the data within a short timeframe would satisfy that, right? > >> But why do we need to say that raw data can be processed? > I think I am saying that that is the 'purpose' of the raw data for the 'permission' -- the only 'purpose' one has in it, is to process it. > >> Isn't permission to process data into an unregulated state inherent in the spec? > Not that I see, and I think it's worth making explicit. > >> I'm not seeing the need for this explicit statement about "raw data". In any case, don't we mean to say something like "under DNT:1 tracking information may be used but must be deidentified/delinked within N days" as in ISSUE-142? > Do you happen to know what text resulted from 142? It might help me to review it. Is there a way to access prior drafts of doc?
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 17:13:49 UTC