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

Re: ACTION-110: Write proposal text for what it means to "not track" (ISSUE-119)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:45:31 -0800
Cc: Ninja Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D7925FD2-AAE4-40C9-8FA6-84274D038854@gbiv.com>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
> Is this alternative just a re-statement of one outcome of the compliance doc or do you think this is an optional level beyond compliance? (I believe we're aiming for the latter in ISSUE-119.) I personally would think "absolutely not tracking" wouldn't include retaining identifying data for business purposes outside of the user's intent for an indeterminate length of time.

I don't know what you are aiming for, but the standard cannot
contain two different definitions of what "not tracking" means.
Placing "absolutely" in the front doesn't change that.

Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 23:45:58 UTC

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