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

Re: Poll text call: final text by 28 September

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:47:00 +0200
Cc: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EAC2A6F3-8A2C-468F-9358-2270CD07C566@w3.org>
To: ifette@google.com
On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> wrote:

> If all you say is essentially "You may keep data for six weeks for the purposes of accomplishing permitted uses" then I don't get what the purpose is, it doesn't seem to make anything either easier or harder for implementers, indeed it seems like a no-op.

Given that we have in the current draft limitations on retention, this grace period certainly doesn't seem like a no-op. The difference would be: "You can retain only the data you need for accomplishing permitted uses" vs. "You can retain any data for six weeks, but can't use it except for permitted uses". That would be the difference between a real-time data minimization system that strips any fields not necessary before writing logs to disk and a monthly batch process to minimize standard logs; compliance with the latter would seem to be much easier.

> Going back to waaay earlier discussions, my original intent was to make it easier for people to claim compliance. I guess the analogue would be changing from a presumption of "innocence" to a presumption of "guilt". That is, in the six week period, compliance with the spec should mean that you don't do <insert super aggregious thing here, such as transferring all data to a third party>. There's a presumption you're not doing this, and as long as that remains true, you're fine. Since standard logging is (by definition) a standard practice, we aren't going out of the way to make you prove what practices you do or don't do, as long as you don't do X you're good.

What I thought I was hearing from the group is that we didn't want to create separate lists of practices ranked by egregiousness. (I'm also not sure that the blacklist language changes the presumption in proving compliance -- in both cases you need to prove that you're not doing some set of things.)

> Long-term data retention has much higher risks in terms of exposure to actual privacy problems (data breach, or secondary uses that users may view as harmful to their privacy desires). As such, if you retain data for a longer term (>6wks) then you have a higher responsibility, and the burden shifts to you to show that the data is being maintained securely, and that access to the data is well controlled and in accordance with the permitted uses.

Right, I think that is a common goal: the motivation here is that short-term retention is both a common practice and less of a privacy concern, and so we can relax data minimization requirements (limits on what data can be retained) for short-term retention. I'm not sure I see why that would also extend to a different set of use limitations in the short term.


(Apologies if I'm echoing Vincent who is faster at sending these emails than I am.)
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 12:47:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:58 UTC