RE: Initial Work Plan on Change Proposals, including for next Wednesday

Shane, you are confusing me. As I understood from yesterday, under the strict definition of tracking, this example would most likely qualify as 'not tracking'. Where do we disconnect?

Rob 

Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>Rob,
>
>In this example, Twitter is purposely allowing for mapping between
>hashed identifiers whereas in the industry proposal this is expressly
>prohibited and will require a combination of technical, operational,
>and administrative controls to develop a level of reasonable confidence
>this process cannot be reverse engineered.
>
>- Shane
>
>From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:26 PM
>To: public-tracking@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Initial Work Plan on Change Proposals, including for next
>Wednesday
>
>
>Example of the linkability of hashed pseudonyms:
>https://blog.twitter.com/2013/experimenting-with-new-ways-to-tailor-ads,
>a nice use case that shows that the definition of de-identified in the
>DAA proposal may cause problems.
>
>Rob
>Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>> wrote:
>
>Peter,
>
>We have gotten to the point that the only logical and responsible way
>forward IMHO is to task industry to chop up the DAA proposal into
>change proposals and include these in the wiki that Nick painstakingly
>kept up to date.
>
>Next week, I hope that the group will want to dive deeper into the
>discussion on de-identification, when Shane and Dan are back. Dan put
>out a reasonable request on the mailing list, after having put in a lot
>of work on the topic of de-identification.
>
>Rob
>
>Dan Auerbach <dan@eff.org<mailto:dan@eff.org>> wrote:
>Hi Peter and everyone,
>
>I'm unfortunately on vacation next week and won't be available for this
>call. I have given a lot of thought and energy to the de-identification
>and unique id issues, so would like the opportunity to further discuss
>the following week once I'm back before any decisions are made. I will
>catch up with the minutes. I'd love to get to agreement on these
>issues, but they are tough and important, so we need to proceed
>carefully.
>
>Below are some quick comments addressing some of your questions:
>
>On 06/28/2013 02:56 PM, Peter Swire wrote: