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

Rigo,

I disagree both with your position and your tone - please lessen the drama.

The Working Group had not formally begun by Princeton if I remember correctly - the first official meeting was at MIT a bit afterwards.  I'll ask Nick and the Co-Chairs to confirm.  Therefore any "agreement" was not by the working group.  Further, I don't believe the solidarity of your belief in that agreement has been captured in draft text.  If it has, could you please point this out?  You are using terms that are yet to be defined ("track") and if you believe no data collection is possible, then why are we discussing "Permitted Uses"?  These carve-outs highlight the divide between the existence of data and its use (case in point).

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 9:37 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: David Singer; Roy T. Fielding; public-tracking@w3.org; Bjoern Hoehrmann
Subject: Re: ISSUE-16, ACTION-166: define (data) collection

Shane, 

On Friday 01 June 2012 14:14:40 Shane Wiley wrote:
> In my opinion this is a key divide in the debate for Permitted Uses vs.
> Unlinkability.

Unfortunately, your use of the terminology is neither correct nor helpful. 
The divide between collect-but-do-not-target vs do-not-track was solved in 
Princeton. I recollect the same as David. The collect-but-do-not-target is 
US only and was repeatedly rejected by all possible regulators. Can we 
actually stop playing whack-a-mole?

Rigo

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 07:42:26 UTC