- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:38:58 +0100
- To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Shane, Rigo, The element of "unnecessary" is closely tied to the principle of purpose limitation. Rob Rigo Wenning schreef op 2012-11-01 00:10: > Shane, > > IMHO, the data minimization principle and the purpose limitation we > installed for permitted uses cut both ways. Only collect what is > necessary and only keep it as long as you need it. So "graduate > response" by saying I delete stuff that I don't need anymore is an > expression of those principles. > The issue is rather how much "more" will trigger the alarm bells of > "unnecessary" collection. There is wiggle room and we can explore > that. But I wouldn't assume we can disregard the collection > limitation and just bet on the subsequent deletion. No easy answer > there. Nick tries to put that in words. Not bad. What would you open > up with which changes to Nick's wording? > > Rigo > > On Wednesday 31 October 2012 09:15:59 Shane Wiley wrote: >> Would it be possible to look at “graduated response” in the >> opposite direction as an element of data minimization? Collect >> more data up-front (security, debugging, frequency capping) and >> move to less data where possible as a “graduated response”. As I >> stated in Amsterdam, attempting to operational-ize a technical >> “graduated response” in the less->more sense is not a trivial >> matter (if at all really possible in most circumstances), whereas >> the opposite is much more doable.
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 06:39:27 UTC