W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

RE: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:29:59 -0800
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D0C8ACA2E@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Rigo,

The current model has worked well.  Do you have documented examples where this hasn't worked and consumers have been harmed?  Do you have a scenario where a company has stated retention period X and it was discovered they in fact retained data for period Y and this was not quickly addressed by regulators?  

The Frequency Capping exception is just that - an exception to the general rule and is narrowly limited only for that very specific business operation - meaning a company would be able to retain the data necessary to accurately manage frequency caps per device/browser per campaign.  If this is 2 weeks for one company and 90 days for another company, I would expect each company to minimize their data retention for this business purpose to come in-line with their demonstrated need for the data.  AKA - minimization standard which is unique and specific to each company.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:20 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; Roy T. Fielding; Jonathan Mayer
Subject: Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

Shane, 

On Wednesday 08 February 2012 07:03:31 Shane Wiley wrote:
> 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.

this also depends on who is the arbiter at what point in time. We are here 
because the model of arbitration we had so far didn't work particularly well. 
As far as I understand it, you suggest to maintain that model. Do you?

If you talk about minimization standards, I would be interested in concrete 
suggestions of minimization including a clear understanding of what is 
currently collected and will not be collected under the DNT=1 frequency 
capping exception.

Finally, my argument was about fixed timeframes for retention and not arbitrary 
ones. That means we agree, don't we? 

Best, 

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:36:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC