- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:49:46 -0400
- To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- CC: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5066298A.7070803@networkadvertising.org>
John, It might be helpful to provide your basis for suggesting the two week period as a viable option. -David On 9/28/12 6:33 PM, John Simpson wrote: > Aleecia, > > I would offer this option: > > Option 3: > > Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a third-party > context for up to TWO weeks. During this time, operators may render > data unlinkable (as described above) or perform processing of the data > for any of the other permitted uses > > ---------- > John M. Simpson > Consumer Advocate > Consumer Watchdog > 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 > Santa Monica, CA,90405 > Tel: 310-392-7041 > Cell: 310-292-1902 > www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org> > john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org> > > On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:12 PM, David Wainberg wrote: > >> Aleecia, >> >> In reviewing this to provide feedback, it occurs to me that it relies >> on the definition of unlinkable, which is still very much up for >> debate. How can companies weigh in on these options without >> understanding what the requirements actually are? We should postpone >> this poll until we define unlinkable so that companies can give >> realistic feedback regarding the time and effort needed to meet the >> requirements. >> >> Thanks, >> >> David >> >> >> On 9/25/12 6:20 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: >>> From the call on 12 September, we discussed topics where we have >>> increasing clarity on options for permitted uses. I want to make >>> sure we have the text right to reflect our options prior to doing a >>> decision process with a poll calling for objections, which is >>> responsive to Ian's feedback. We also want to move quickly, as Roy >>> suggests. >>> >>> Please propose specific alternative text if you believe that the two >>> texts given below do not reflect the options before us by Friday, 28 >>> September. We will briefly review these texts on the call tomorrow, >>> just to make sure no one misses anything, and here we are on the >>> mailing list, for those who cannot make the call. >>> >>> Aleecia >>> >>> ----- >>> Log files: issue-134 >>> ---- >>> >>> This normative text fits into the section on Third Party Compliance, >>> subsection 6.1.1.1, Short Term Collection and Use, >>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#short-term>. >>> We will also want non-normative text, and have some suggested, but >>> that will be clearer once we have the normative text settled. >>> (Options for definitions of unlinkable data are in section 3.6, >>> Unlinkable Data, >>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-unlinkable>.) >>> >>> Option 1: >>> Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a >>> third-party context for up to 6 weeks. During this time, operators >>> may render data unlinkable (as described above) or perform >>> processing of the data for any of the other permitted uses. >>> >>> Option 2: >>> Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a >>> third-party context. They MUST provide public transparency of their >>> data retention period, which MUST have a specific time period (e.g. >>> not infinite or indefinite.) During this time, operators may render >>> data unlinkable (as described above) or perform processing of the >>> data for any of the other permitted uses. >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 22:50:18 UTC