Re: June Change proposal: Not tracking (Issue - 119)

Hi John,

ISSUE-119 is currently pending review, based on the presence of text in the Tracking Preference Expression document defining the meaning of the "N" response value, which doesn't require a separate definition in the Compliance doc.

I have moved 119 to the Compliance June product, and created a wiki page for this proposal:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_No_Tracking

I personally would suggest that we do not need a separate definition (as I have in the past, and how we got to Pending Review on this issue). I'm happy to talk about that offline or alternately to put forward a no-change/no-text proposal.

Thanks,
Nick

On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:36 AM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> I propose th following text be added at the appropriate point:
> 
> A party may claim that it is not tracking, if it:
> 1) only collects identifying data which is strictly necessary to answer 
> the user's HTTP request and to fulfil it's contractual obligation 
> towards the user
> 2) does not send, collect or check for unique identifiers
> 3) does not correlate the data of a DNT HTTP request with any other data
> 4) deletes the identifying data as soon as the original purpose is fulfilled
> The TPE provides for the status header N, and this compliance language mirrors that status.  Some 1st party servers will want to signal that they collect no tracking data.