Re: clarifying distinctions on ISSUE-24 (security/fraud)

Hi Chris,

I think the questions below would apply similarly to your change proposal on security/fraud. In brief,

1. Would "extent proportionate and reasonably necessary" also work for your proposal?

2. Is "disingenuous" key to your proposal? If so, do you mean to just include malicious deception (you specifically give the example of non-human ad impressions) or, for example, any privacy tool which might mask the originating IP address?

Thanks,
Nick

On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi John and Roy,
> 
> I just wanted to clarify some distinctions for your change proposal on security/fraud permitted use:
> 
> One key difference is certainly adding the definition of graduated response and stating that it is preferred. There are a couple of other distinctions from the Editors' Draft text, and I wasn't sure how essential they are to the proposal. (If we can consolidate proposals, that will make the groups' decision-making easier.)
> 
> 1. To the extent reasonably necessary vs. to the extent proportionate and reasonably necessary:
> I believe the "proportionate" language came out of some concerns from our EU colleagues. Would you agree with including proportionate as well? In that case, I think the graduated-response-is-preferred language would explain the concept nicely.
> 
> 2. "malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity" vs. "security risks and fraudulent or malicious activity"
> Is deceptive necessary here? Would deceptive include use of anonymizing proxies, onion routing, or other network-related privacy measures? Or is it just aimed at malicious deception (like fraudulent automated impressions, say)?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
> Re: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security#WD-style_text_.2B_Graduated_Response

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 22:57:26 UTC