Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Rigo,

Now that the deadline for friendly amendments has been set for Friday 
July 26, there is time to engage in an genuine effort for privacy by 
design.  As indicated on July 3 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0043.html) 
I see progress on the normative language and specifically in purpose 
limitation and not applying the audience measurement data to 
individuals, a computer of device. I see the right mindset in terms of 
privicy by design: changing data from a
site visitor into data about a site object. It is for that reason that I 
am committed to reaching out to Kathy and Ronan. Since there has been no 
respons yet since last Friday, it is not appropriate to dive into the 
details, but the challenge for them is to come up with a privacy 
friendly design, that moves away from unique identifiers.

Added to that, I think Mike's comment is valid, that although we may end 
up with a text, it is not clear at all, including to me, that a 
permitted use is necessary. This off course will be part of a call for 
objections that the Chair announced is expected to be issued 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0425.html).

I am keeping all options open at this moment.

Rob





Rigo Wenning schreef op 2013-07-23 01:19:
> Rob,
> 
> before we take that on, we have to match Kathy's suggestion with 
> Ronan's
> interpretation. I have repeatedly asked whether audience measurement is
> used to target users either by changing their view on the web or by
> allowing a real time adaption of web content.
> 
> I was always told, this is not the case and that sporting
> interpretations to the contrary only engage those who are making them.
> This is why Kathy included the bit about the recognized QA mechanism by
> the professional associations.
> 
> If you have concerns about people giving misinterpretations to Kathy's
> text, please indicate where those are. We can not lock down the 
> practice
> of a theoretic audience measurement company interpreting the text as a
> permission to create user profiles under the permitted use of "audience
> measurement". The only thing we can do is to make Kathy's text work.
> 
> And it may also be clear that a far too creative interpretation of
> wording from a potential compliance specification will not always be
> accepted by all authorities. So before killing Shane's vision of one
> data store for permitted uses that you treat respectfully, I want to
> make sure we are not only talking past each other .
> 
> --Rigo
> 
> On Monday 22 July 2013 16:34:01 Rob van Eijk wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I added a proposal for a new general principle for permitted uses to
> the wiki:
> 
> The reason this is relevant, is the recent discussion on audience
> measurement and frequency capping. An identifier set for one permitted
> use is currently not prohibited to use for another permitted use.
> 
> 
> == New general principle for permitted uses ==
> 
> 
> 5.2.5 no matching/syncing between permitted uses
> 
> Data collected or retained by a party for a specific permitted use
> must not be matched or synced with data from other permitted uses.
> 
> Disallowed Example: cookie syncing between permitted uses.

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 08:07:57 UTC