Re: linked

OK, responding to Giles and Eric's concerns... how about:

<p>A piece of data X is said to be <i>linked</i> to a cookie Y if at
least one of the following activities may take place as a result of
cookie Y being replayed:</p>

<ul>

<li>X is retrieved from a persistent data store or archival media.</li>

<li>Information identifiable with the user -- including but not
limited to data entered into forms, IP address, clickstream data, and
client events -- is added to a record, data structure, or file
in which X is stored. </li>

</ul>



On Feb 17, 2004, at 8:10 AM, Giles Hogben wrote:

>
>
>> **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 Thursday, 19 February 2004 15:24:16 UTC