- From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:39:32 -0600
- To: "'John Simpson'" <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'Chris Mejia'" <chris.mejia@iab.net>
- Message-ID: <020001ce6e9d$e8b3a050$ba1ae0f0$@otalliance.org>
This is more balanced and addresses the issues I raised a few weeks ago. Thank you From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 7:44 AM To: public-tracking@w3.org List Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Chris Mejia Subject: Change proposal -- Permitted Use Security and Fraud -- Issue-24 Colleagues, I wanted to ensure that the security permitted use language first proposed by Roy Fielding and incorporating essential non-normative text suggest by Ian Fette be considered. It would substitute for the security language in the June draft and adds the essential concept of graduated response and, importantly, explains the concept. Regardless of the tracking preference expressed, data may be collected, retained, and used to the extent reasonably necessary to detect security incidents, protect the service against malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity, and prosecute those responsible for such activity, provided that such data is not used for operational behavior (profiling or personalization) beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the service or institute a graduated response. When feasible, a graduated response to a detected security incident is preferred over widespread data collection (see <defn>). An example would be recording all use from a given IP address range, regardless of DNT signal, if the party believes it is seeing a coordinated attack on its service (such as click fraud) from that IP address range. Similarly, if an attack shared some other identifiable fingerprint, such as a combination of User Agent and other protocol information, the party could retain logs on all transactions matching that fingerprint until it can be determined that they are not associated with such an attack or such retention is no longer necessary to support prosecution. Regards, John --------- John M. Simpson Privacy Project Director Consumer Watchdog 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA, 90405 Tel: 310-392-7041 Cell: 310-292-1902 www.ConsumerWatchdog.org john@consumerwatchdog.org
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 16:40:05 UTC