Re: Aw: Re: skeleton draft regarding fingerprinting guidance

Hi Hannes,



> I wonder whether you find these definitions useful.

Yes. It always good to have a definition written to be sure that there  
is no misunderstanding, particularly if these terms will be used to  
evaluate Specf. reg. Privacy.


>  Also, I am curious whether it makes sense to have a separate  
> document purely on fingerprinting rather than incorporating the  
> terms and potential recommendations in the privacy guidelines  
> document.

I would prefer to have all the terms and recommandations related to  
Privacy  written in a same document. From my point of view,  this will  
be more helpful for those who will review the spec.

Best regards

Karima



>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. April 2013 um 09:58 Uhr
> Von: "Nicholas Doty" <npdoty@w3.org>
> An: "Christine Runnegar" <runnegar@isoc.org>
> Cc: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
> Betreff: Re: skeleton draft regarding fingerprinting guidance
> Thanks all for your feedback; I'm gathering those resources and  
> trying to work through your comments where I can.
>
> As mentioned last month, I've moved the doc to a Github repo and  
> formatted it in our spec style. The latest version includes distinct  
> definitions for *passive* vs. *active* fingerprinting, with some  
> references, as I think that distinction may prove to be very  
> important.
>
> http://w3c.github.io/fingerprinting-guidance/
>
> Comments are, as always, welcome. Also, Github provides the  
> functionality that you can also directly fork and submit pull  
> requests of potential edits, if Git is something you're comfortable  
> with. The repository and code itself is available here: https://github.com/w3c/fingerprinting-guidance
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> P.S. I may be behind in following up with potential collaborators,  
> my apologies, I'm trying to get caught up. Ping me again, or, in  
> general, let me know if you're interested and we're happy to let you  
> loose on this document outline. :)
>
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>  
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Nick!
> >
> > I think it would be useful to take this content and put it on a  
> collaborative platform. Perhaps we could discuss the best place on  
> the call tomorrow.
> >
> > Everyone,
> >
> > In the meantime, please feel free to start adding to Nick's draft  
> via this list.
> >
> > Christine
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:21 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Inspired by conversations at the TPAC breakout session on  
> fingerprinting, I've started an outline/draft of a document for  
> giving positive guidance to spec authors about what fingerprinting  
> is exactly and how we might address it across specs.
> >>
> >> As you can see, this is a mostly empty outline and obviously just  
> a beginning, and I'm certainly not wedded to any of it. But I  
> thought it might be a good basis for conversation, perhaps on this  
> week's conference call, or just on the list. In particular,  
> documenting the different threats or different levels of success  
> sounded like it would be useful for spec authors who we hear are  
> already thinking about this balancing act.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for all your thoughts,
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> P.S. Written in Markdown, forgive me if you don't like this  
> syntax. I'm happy to throw this on the wiki or on github if people  
> would like to collaborate on it actively.
>