On Sunday 18 November 2012 21:01:54 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I believe many of us will have issue with your proposed definition
> and would recommend something closer to the one Roy has offered.

which is precisely the point why the definition is to be avoided. It 
just re-opens the discussion at day one. 
> Your proposal uses fairly loaded terms that have different
> meanings across regions (which could be good or bad depending on
> how you look at it), such as "personal data" so perhaps more
> neutral language is a better path.

Do you mean "personal data"? What is all that privacy about? Again, 
a perfect reason to keep our fingers away from that definition. I 
consider the use of the term "personal data" a pure emotional 
problem. It is the term we use since the mid sixties of the last 
century (invented by Westin in US!) We could call it "dossier" if 
you find that neat. 
> I'm glad to see we're at least having this conversation
> though.  Your proposal is expanded to any "personal data"
> collection whereas the alternate definition from Roy is focused
> on cross-site (non-affiliated) data collection/use which is much
> closer to where the current draft stands.

But says the same.

My definition says: Scope is all collection of personal data in HTTP. 
This is then to be seen in the context of the Specification that 
says: Do anything if DNT:0 or first party. Do only the allowed, if 
DNT:1 and third party.  It is precisely the stated goal of my 
definition that it doesn't change anything and makes clear that the 
definition-discussion is a phantom/pseudo-discussion.

Or can you imagine cross-site tracking by a first party that would 
not fall under the first party exception? Roy's definition just 
doubles the first/third party distinction. 

In this case, where is the issue with my definition? 

I still wait to see you come out of the woods with the additional 
scope reduction by a definition that we do not need. This is like 
writing and executing the code two times independently because you 
have a feeling the parser could have missed something the first time. 

We can have this discussion. But I want to make clear that 
a/ it doesn't change anything
b/ I already now believe it is a waste of resources
c/ it is understandable from the emotional point, thus we may have 
to discuss it to keep everybody on the same page (which is a normal 
activity in standardization). 


Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 08:05:28 UTC