Re: Geolocation

Location is one of the most sensitive personal data. Just removing text 
is no ok IMHO as people will look for hints on geolocation. That we do 
not have provisions here is fine, but we then need non-normative text on 
what to do. 

I think that fine grained geolocation use is incompatible with DNT:1 
Relying on external laws and best practices is not appropriate. We need 
a minimum protection here for those unregulated markets. 

So either use postal code, but not k-anonymity, at least not without 
specifying a minimum area grid:


On Monday 17 June 2013 23:48:45 Shane Wiley wrote:
> David,
> I agree and many Codes of Conduct and separate regulatory guidelines
> are emerging to manage this issue head-on (precise geolocation /
> mobile privacy).  I would recommend we drop this from the DNT
> conversation at this time.  To our credit, 2 years ago when we
> started this document the external conversation on precise
> geolocation collection and use hadn't really started in earnest.  Now
> I'd argue those efforts have far exceeded our own so best to remove
> this call out in the draft.
> - Shane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer []
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 4:44 PM
> To: Mailing List
> Subject: Geolocation
> I am puzzled that we single out this particular datum, amongst all the
> possible ones.  Isn't geolocation privacy best dealt with by the
> geolocation specifications, and shouldn't the general issue be dealt
> with by the limitation on tracking, i.e.
> if I live as a hermit in a postal code with no other inhabitants, then
> postal code DOES associate that data with me.
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 07:47:18 UTC