Re: ISSUE-5: definition of tracking

On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:21 , Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> The purpose of a single, one or two sentence definition of what
> DNT:1 means (and also what DNT:0 means) is so that it can be
> included in the UI, either directly or via tooltip/documentation,
> and thus become part of the nomenclature that can be reasonably
> understood by the user setting that config.
> 

OK, I was looking at a completely different purpose:  to narrow the scope of what we need to discuss and specify, such that if you fall *outside* the scope, you don't have to worry about this spec. at all.

> Furthermore, it allows us to make progress on the rest of the
> specification with a common understanding of what the specification
> is intended to accomplish, as opposed to what we just experienced
> on the call.

Just why I want to narrow the scope so we can truncate some discussions by saying "that's out of scope".

> 
>> So please do not use the definition for the access log argument. The 
>> real question on access logs is the time of non-anonymized 
>> retention. W3C anonymizes logs as a matter of policy after 6 weeks. 
>> This also helps with exuberant subpoenae. We can (and should IMHO) 
>> discuss this explicitly instead of complicating the definition.
> 
> No, we can use fine print to further *restrict* the scope of retention,
> because the user is not going to complain about further constraints
> on what they have already permitted.  We cannot use fine print to
> broaden the scope to allow things that do not appear to be allowed
> by the definition.


All the permitted uses cover allowing some form or degree of tracking - that is their essential nature.  I don't see how to accomplish what you want here.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 20:37:31 UTC