RE: De-identification and 3 data states?

John,

Thank you for the clarification - I was addressing the good/bad signal issue.    

Under this proposal, DNT:1 data MUST be de-identified and then later de-linked.  

DNT:0 data MAY be de-identified and then later de-linked but would not be required to.  Data resulting from DNT:0 will have far greater utility than DNT:1 data so there are incentives for companies to obtain user consent to gain this additional value.

DNT:unset depends on Legal jurisdiction.

Does this answer your question?  

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: De-identification and 3 data states?

Hi Shane,

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant. There may be "bad" DNT signals that don't accurately reflect a user's intent.  I'm not asking about those cases.

What I was wondering was how would data that came from UAs where DNT unset or DNT:0 be treated?  How would it be treated differently that the Red/Yellow/Green process described.  

Would it not be simpler to treat all data collected the same way under this system?  How exactly would non-DNT:1 data be handled that differs from DNT:1 data?

Thans,
John 


On Jun 27, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> I believe the problem of non-intuitive parties injecting the DNT signal is going to grow unbounded - even more so than it already is today - once we announce a completed standard.  In many cases it's impossible to disambiguate a "good" signal from a "bad" one - so we're likely to recognize many of them.  Since there will still be situations where it's obvious and able to be detected when a "bad" signal is being sent, I believe we should still have an option of sending the "D" response (disregard) but I see the probability/percentage of that outcome being MUCH lower than the volume of DNT:1 we're likely to see as this advances.  It's simply too easy to inject DNT:1 into the page response flow using our current approach...
> 
> Long story short - in this proposal I could imagine most, if not all, DNT signals are recognized.  Please understand this is a SIGNIFICANT compromise position so hopefully you'll honor it as such to help us find middle-ground and a consensus position.  I hope we both agree this will be a huge step forward for online consumer privacy. 
> 
> NOTE - I speak only for myself on this situation - not Yahoo! or other industry participants - BUT I suspect you'll find my position to be shared by many others.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:38 PM
> To: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: De-identification and 3 data states?
> 
> Hi Shane,
> 
> A question prompted by your slide presentation about de-identification: Do you envision only data collected from UA's sending a DNT:1 message to be handled in the manner described, or would industry simply process all data collected in this way?
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 23:27:18 UTC