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: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:18:03 -0800
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6E120BECD1FFF142BC26B61F4D994CF3064CAB4C4E@nambx07.corp.adobe.com>
In most cases however, I believe that 'collection' in these instances more closely matches the term 'retention' as Jonathon has defined them.

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:03 PM
To: Matthias Schunter
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

Regulators in both US and EU now say that its both collection and use that's the problem.  The US regulators understand that the industry has implemented a wide-ranging first+third party data collection system (ad exchanges are good example of this).  We will see greater focus on collection in regulatory policy debates.

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009

On Feb 9, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Matthias Schunter wrote:

Hi Team,

for DNT-related data,  Roy's assessment of the key regulatory concerns
matches my experience


On 2/9/2012 10:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

Judging from my personal discussions with regulators, I would not
say that data collection constraints are a significant concern.
Data sharing (on purpose or by failure to handle it properly) is
the primary concern.  Data retention beyond that necessary to
support user-consented operational uses, or in a form that is
unnecessary to support operational uses, is a concern.
Obtaining specific and informed consent is a concern.
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:18:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:33 UTC