- From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:29:43 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- CC: Vincent Toubiana <v.toubiana@free.fr>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I apologize for being offline so long. I had other work that I needed to focus on. Responses below. JC -----Original Message----- From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:35 PM To: JC Cannon Cc: Vincent Toubiana; public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: [Issue-5][Action-78] Remember to forget me Le 2 févr. 2012 à 19:44, JC Cannon a écrit : > Are you indicating that 3rd parties must go back through raw logs or processed data to erase the referrer de-identify the entry? If the former this will near impossible for companies who collect an enormous amount of logs daily. This is a reasonable argument, but then the other solution would be to opacify the data on the spot and/or not record them at all. Which one is the most reasonable? Shutting down options without proposing new ones doesn't help the discussion. [JC] Keeping a separate set of logs and applying a DNT retention period to that set of logs seems like a reasonable approach. However, it will take time to modify systems to support this change. De-identification is another possible approach, though we need to specify the level of de-identification that is acceptable. Unlinkability could be a good measure. >> - A User-Agent sending DNT:1 MAY prevent the transmission of cookies and other identifiers that are sent with the request. > If cookie suppression occurs at the client it will override exceptions that may be place for a site. exceptions of which nature? opt-in cookies and/or opt-out cookies. It might be interesting to develop a solution where this is manageable by sites. STill need to think about that. -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2012 19:30:49 UTC