- From: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:10:03 +0100
- To: "'Lorrie Cranor'" <lorrie@cs.cmu.edu>
- Cc: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
>**On Feb 16, 2004, at 4:59 AM, Giles Hogben wrote: >** >**> >**> Some comments: >**> 1. I don't think the requirement that it be stored as a particular >**> database >**> record is valid. I think that linkability should be described >**> independently >**> of the technical architecture used. This is why I tried to >**describe it >**> in >**> terms of the intentions and proportionality. >** >**This actually goes to the heart of what I was trying to do... >**I wanted >**to define "linkable" independently of technical architecture >**but define >**"linked" more narrowly. So far I haven't come up with an >**example of an >**architecture in which we would want to say that data is >**linked and does >**not involve either triggering a database retrieval or >**storage. Perhaps >**you have an example? >** Cookies and files used in forensics are not linked to a database. Server logs are not really databases? >**> 2. You do not mention the use of referers to link cookies together. >** >**I will add that. >** >**> 3. I think the examples given are simpler than those I gave. >**> >** >**Is that a good thing or a bad thing? >** That is a good thing. >** >**Lorrie >** >**
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 08:10:04 UTC