- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:03:22 +0200
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, 'achapell' <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "npdoty@w3.org" <npdoty@w3.org>, "tlr@w3.org" <tlr@w3.org>, "jeff@democraticmedia.org" <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Shane, I understood mostly what you want to do. Like in audience measurement, you don't need to know who has preferred the ad in the upper right corner. You need the counter. I understand that. You still do not answer my question on the naming of that thing. I suggested to name that thing "enhanced pseudonymization", not de- identification. In audience measurement we sanitized the discussion a lot by removing ambiguous naming. That's the goal here too. You entertain the misunderstanding by naming your technique "de- identification". You could name it also "re-serialization". Whatever, but not de-identification. If you want wording on the technique itself from me, you risk that I do more harm than good... But if you insist, I will do it.. --Rigo On Wednesday 10 July 2013 10:38:15 Shane Wiley wrote: > I believe you've grossly misinterpreted the industry proposal on this > point. Yellow data is not "off the hook" - it can only be used for > analytical purposes. And no one has felt that this analysis would > allow for behavioral fingerprinting of specific users - so happy to > take that off the table - please provide proposed language. The goal > is to truly make yellow data (de-identified but event linkable) only > usable for "aggregate analysis". To be clear, this could result in > analytics that say for a specific web page users generally click on > ads placed in position B over position A so begin to show all ads in > position B. So the results may be generally applied but not > specifically applied to a single individual. > > I hope this clears up the situation.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 13:04:07 UTC