- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:03:31 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Arbitrary timeframes are just that - arbitrary. I would recommend the group continue to uphold minimization standards and force parties to defend their retention periods that are unique and specific to their business model. -----Original Message----- From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:21 AM To: public-tracking@w3.org Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Jonathan Mayer Subject: Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49) On Tuesday 07 February 2012 18:29:45 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > You defined collection as merely receiving the information. The user is > sending the information across the network. Therefore, the third party > will collect it regardless of our protocol. Retention, however, can be > limited in such a way that the user's browsing history cannot be discovered > from the data retained for frequency capping. Is that sufficient? If not, > why? Wasn't that the first suggestion Ninja made in Brussels when confronted with this issue? She said 24-48 hours. Let's discuss that... We could resolve by having 2 options: Either have a client-side storage solution under the user's control OR the service has a shorter retention time and will not be able to maintain the capping over an entire campaign of several month. That sets the incentives to explore the client-side solutions under user control without forcing people to it. Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 15:09:19 UTC