RE: ISSUE-16, ACTION-166: define (data) collection

David,

I would of course word it differently :-) but yes this is generally the same debate.  The issue is that those records don't represent your behavior unless someone uses them to try to determine your behavior.  That's why the discussion of "use" should override "existence".  While there is some risk from mere existence, if use prohibitions meet the goal then this removes the immediate user harm and satisfies the desire for privacy.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:21 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; Bjoern Hoehrmann
Subject: Re: ISSUE-16, ACTION-166: define (data) collection


On Jun 1, 2012, at 14:14 , Shane Wiley wrote:

> David,
> 
> I believe you've hit on a key issue "existence vs. use".  While this is debated, many on the industry side believe it's more appropriate to focus on use than on mere existence.  In my opinion this is a key divide in the debate for Permitted Uses vs. Unlinkability.

OK, interesting.  Is this what is behind the "do not create records about me" vs. "do not target me in ads"? It's hard to see what the *privacy* impact of being shown an ad for a dishwasher vs. a hang-glider is (assuming one is relevant to me and the other not), whereas there is a privacy impact in someone having detailed records of my behavior, vs. them not having it.

Is this the debate to which you refer?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 21:44:38 UTC