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


On Saturday 02 June 2012 00:41:33 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I disagree both with your position and your tone - please lessen the
> drama.

My apologies if the language sounded offensive. This wasn't intended.
> 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).

Ok, fair point. I don't want to go into the game of precluding things by 
pointing to old minutes and then debate the validity of those minutes. 
Because that doesn't help the consensus either. I don't want to create a 
trap here. But I think we agreed that receiving DNT;1 includes some 
collection limitations. Now you're right to point out that this somewhat 
overlaps with the 6 weeks full log collection. I need to verify what is 
already in the Specification. My point was to the principle (my bad to have 
done that) of having some collection limitation in case of DNT;1 and that we 
can't make DNT;1 just a pure! use limitation. Because that wouldn't work 
nowhere but in the US IMHO. And I'm not even sure about it there.



Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 14:52:41 UTC