- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:02:29 -0700
- To: Jason Bier <jbier@dotomi.com>
- CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Edward W. Felten" <felten@CS.Princeton.EDU>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
- Message-ID: <4FE20225.8050409@blaeu.com>
Shane, One major goal of your contribution was to explain [non-normative] why the processing with unique identifiers is proportionate. In Washington we talked about a template. This contribution is however lacking any subsidiary arguments and there is no balance against the interests of a user. Instead, the contribution is a firmer confirmation of the DAA multi-site principles. Hope to learn more later on today, when your proposal is on the agenda. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:27 PM To: Shane Wiley Subject: Template non-normative text Shane, (...) In this spirit, the template I propose for the non-normative section without making it a legal analysis, is: - Start with a detailed business purpose (note: singular) description (ie what is it that is permitted) - Describe which categories of data will be tied to a identifier - Explain why the processing with identifiers is proportionate (proportianality test) and explain the alternatives (subsidiarity test) for processing (ie why do you need a car if you can use a bycivle) - Describe reasonable technical and organizational safeguards to prevent further processing (e.g. by collection limitations, data silo, authorization restrictions, k-anonimity, unlinkability, retention time, anonimization, pseudonimization, data encryption etc.). I think our report on TomTom [2],[3 page 13-14] is an interesting example to correctly anonimize and aggregate a dataflow. Finally, - Take*all* the above into account and describe the impact on the privacy of the user (eg what is the harm). This is a key balancing element. Regards::Rob On 20-6-2012 9:42, Jason Bier wrote: > > I would like to thank Shane for sending this as well and for Mike's > statement. ValueClick also supports the industry proposal. In the > spirit of cooperation and advancing interests on this matter, I hope > all of us can advance the process and find a solution that results in > meaningful adoption by a significant portion of the online advertising > industry. > > Jason > > ** > > *Jason J. Bier, Esq., CIPP* > > *Chief Privacy Officer* > > *ValueClick, Inc.* > > *o: 312-588-3619* > > *f: 312-896-7422* > > cid:image001.png@01CCE0B7.B73DCF20 > > *From:*Mike Zaneis [mailto:mike@iab.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:55 AM > *To:* Shane Wiley > *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice > > Thank you for sending this Shane. While there are still some items we > would like to see in the two documents that might not be reflected in > the current industry proposal, in the spirit of cooperation and > advancing the process IAB supports this approach. I look forward to > discussing it this week. > > Mike Zaneis > > SVP & General Counsel, IAB > > (202) 253-1466 > > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:05 AM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com > <mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote: > > TPWG, > > Please find attached the detailed proposal text we'll be reviewing > tomorrow afternoon (built upon the proposal outline I provided > last week). > > The following individuals, companies, and trade associations > contributed to this proposal: > > Marc Groman & David Wainberg -- NAI > > Alan Chapell -- Chapell & Associates > > Heather West, Sean Harvey, & Ian Fette -- Google > > Shane Wiley -- Yahoo! > > There is considerable detail covering numerous topics in this > proposal and therefore it should not be consider an endorsement by > all contributors to all parts of this proposal. That said, all > contributors generally agree with the direction and approach of > this document. > > We look forward to further discussion and fielding questions > tomorrow afternoon. > > > Thank you, > Shane > > <Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice - W3C Seattle.docx> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2433/5080 - Release Date: 06/19/12 >
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 17:04:37 UTC