Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?

Jonathan, Roy, 

On Wednesday 07 March 2012 12:16:50 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I (and, as I understand it, quite a few others in the group) favor a
> > blanket third-party collection/retention/use limitation, with an
> > exception for information that could not be used to correlate browsing
> > activity and an exception for protocol information.  (There are, of
> > course, some fine details we might not agree on.  For example: What
> > does a server have to do if the client sends an old ID cookie?  A "hi,
> > here's my SSN" cookie?  What does a server have to do over time with
> > protocol information?)
> Please understand that those aren't exceptions.  They are contradictions.
> We cannot protect against fraud and simultaneously blanket-prohibit
> collection.  We can prohibit use for tracking and retention beyond what
> is necessary for the fraud/legal/security exemptions.

IMHO, your dispute here is a red herring. If even the ePrivacy Directive 
allows for protocol chatter for security  and normal  interactions, we 
shouldn't go beyond that here. See Article 6 Jonathan:

So the best is the enemy of the good here. I still think we can reach 
consensus on a definition. 


Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:26:38 UTC