W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2013

Re: June Draft Proposal: Transient Data

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:08:50 -0700
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <66CEC8712A44493FAB861745B971E520@gmail.com>
Nick,  

I've sent a separate "protocol information" proposal that addresses contextual personalization.  Unlike the June Draft, that proposal doesn't turn on whether data is "transient."  Rather, it looks to whether the data was passively collected protocol information as opposed to stored or solicited information.

Jonathan


On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>  
> I've updated the de-identification page to include your proposal next to Lee's and the editors' draft text:  
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Short_Term
>  
> If it's possible to consolidate your text with Lee's proposal (which includes the text you presented last year in Seattle, I believe), let us know.  
>  
> Also, to repeat the question I posed to Lee on the same section, the editors' draft notes that contextual customization (showing an ad based on the contents of the current network interaction) would be out of scope (and therefore not prohibited) -- would you see that as compatible with your proposal? That is, do you propose to also delete the example sentence following the sentence you suggest we remove?
>  
> Thanks,
> Nick
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu (mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu)> wrote:
> > The present text in the June Draft excludes transient data from limitations:  
> >  
> > "It is outside the scope of this specification to control short-term, transient collection and use of data, so long as the information is not transmitted to a third party and is not used to build a profile about a user or otherwise alter an individual user’s user experience outside the current network interaction."
> >  
> > I would eliminate this passage.  It is vague, unnecessary, and susceptible to abuse.
> >  
>  
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 13:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:32 UTC