W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2012

Re: ACTION-286: Propose DAA text regarding de-identification (for unlinkability discussion)

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:35:44 -0500
Message-ID: <50A527F0.3040507@networkadvertising.org>
To: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
CC: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>, Rachel Thomas <RThomas@the-dma.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Louis Mastria <lou@aboutads.info>, "Chris Mejia (chris.mejia@iab.net)" <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, "mgroman@networkadvertising.org" <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, "Brendan Riordan-Butterworth (Brendan@iab.net)" <Brendan@iab.net>

On 11/15/12 11:35 AM, Lauren Gelman wrote:
> So Jonathan's definition is cleaner because it gives industry a bright 
> line definition of how to comply-- which I know my clients prefer. 
>  But my sense is that both accomplish the same thing.
I disagree that it's cleaner. But that aside, my question to proponents 
of Jonathan's definition is whether you believe the efforts required to 
unlink data, and the subsequent loss of value of the data, should be 
proportionate to the risks associated with the data. If so, what's your 
measure of the proportionality?
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:13 UTC