Re: De-identification and 3 data states?

Yes, thank you.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> Thank you for the clarification - I was addressing the good/bad signal issue.    
> 
> Under this proposal, DNT:1 data MUST be de-identified and then later de-linked.  
> 
> DNT:0 data MAY be de-identified and then later de-linked but would not be required to.  Data resulting from DNT:0 will have far greater utility than DNT:1 data so there are incentives for companies to obtain user consent to gain this additional value.
> 
> DNT:unset depends on Legal jurisdiction.
> 
> Does this answer your question?  
> 
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:57 PM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: De-identification and 3 data states?
> 
> Hi Shane,
> 
> I'm not sure if you understood what I meant. There may be "bad" DNT signals that don't accurately reflect a user's intent.  I'm not asking about those cases.
> 
> What I was wondering was how would data that came from UAs where DNT unset or DNT:0 be treated?  How would it be treated differently that the Red/Yellow/Green process described.  
> 
> Would it not be simpler to treat all data collected the same way under this system?  How exactly would non-DNT:1 data be handled that differs from DNT:1 data?
> 
> Thans,
> John 
> 
> 
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>> I believe the problem of non-intuitive parties injecting the DNT signal is going to grow unbounded - even more so than it already is today - once we announce a completed standard.  In many cases it's impossible to disambiguate a "good" signal from a "bad" one - so we're likely to recognize many of them.  Since there will still be situations where it's obvious and able to be detected when a "bad" signal is being sent, I believe we should still have an option of sending the "D" response (disregard) but I see the probability/percentage of that outcome being MUCH lower than the volume of DNT:1 we're likely to see as this advances.  It's simply too easy to inject DNT:1 into the page response flow using our current approach...
>> 
>> Long story short - in this proposal I could imagine most, if not all, DNT signals are recognized.  Please understand this is a SIGNIFICANT compromise position so hopefully you'll honor it as such to help us find middle-ground and a consensus position.  I hope we both agree this will be a huge step forward for online consumer privacy. 
>> 
>> NOTE - I speak only for myself on this situation - not Yahoo! or other industry participants - BUT I suspect you'll find my position to be shared by many others.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:38 PM
>> To: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: De-identification and 3 data states?
>> 
>> Hi Shane,
>> 
>> A question prompted by your slide presentation about de-identification: Do you envision only data collected from UA's sending a DNT:1 message to be handled in the manner described, or would industry simply process all data collected in this way?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 02:10:55 UTC