>> Rigo Wenning wrote... >> >> 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: >> http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/publications/article-1469.pdf >> >> -- Rigo Bravo, Rigo... ...and please (everyone) don't forget that Yahoo's proposal ( via Brad Kulick, Shane Wiley, et al ) following the Sunnyvale Big Basin breakout ( with regards to replacing IP address(es) with geo-location data as part of Yahoo's proposed de-identification regime ) has been discussed, but not resolved. Walter von Holst raised the concern in this post-Sunnyvale thread... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013May/0058.html As you try to recover from the recent document butchery and return to a viable working state... these are the kind of things that shouldn't be allowed to just 'fall off the table'. Yours Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com> CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>; Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3c.org>; Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>; Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>; Peter Cranstone; <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com> Liz Coker <liz.coker@3pmobile.com>
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 09:43:25 UTC