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

Re: Graduated response (ACTION-279)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:10:23 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>
Message-ID: <5142018.rkzu2E2QIE@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

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?


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 Wednesday, 31 October 2012 23:10:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:59 UTC