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

Rob,

Aggregate Scoring and De-Identification are two very different things.  Your email highlighted that “hashed pseudoymns” could become linkable – this is part of the de-identification discussion, not aggregate scoring.  Your most recent email now crosses over to Aggregate Scoring which I agree is considered “not tracking”.

- Shane

From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: