RE: de-identification text for Wednesday's call


I meant no personal attack in the use of those terms but believe they fairly characterize the desire for data to be so holistically cleansed (use of the term "deleted" is coming up often) as to not invite a middle-ground.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:27 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Dan Auerbach;
Subject: Re: de-identification text for Wednesday's call

On 2013-04-02, at 22:09 +0200, Shane Wiley <> wrote:

> As with HIPPA, I believe differentiated treatment of internal and external datasets is appropriate as this changes the risk profile of re-identification - again, the root of the conversation being a "risk-based" approach

I believe that the discussion of the merits of risk-based approaches to de-identification (and re-identification) is useful.


> versus a totalitarian approach as you suggest.  My solution meets the perceived consumer harm in this case - yours of course does as well but goes far too far over the top of what is actually needed.  If your goal is to create a compromise end-point that will likely be implemented by industry then my recommended approach gets us there.  If you'd like to instead stand by absolutist approaches, that is of course your prerogative and we'll have those removed through the standard W3C process.  I'm simply trying to save everyone some time and get to a meaningful outcome quickly. 

Characterizations like "totalitarian" and "absolutist" won't help us get that discussion to a meaningful outcome.

Let's please stick to the merits and the actual content of the disagreement, and steer clear of terms like those.

Thomas Roessler, W3C <> (@roessler)

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 20:34:51 UTC