Re: June Draft Proposal: Collection and Use Definitions

See the proposed language on protocol information.  I agree, that would be absurd. 

Best,
Jonathan


On Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 6:58 PM, David Singer wrote:

> 
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 23:37 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu (mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu)> wrote:
> 
> > In lieu of the present definitions, I would propose the following:
> > > A party collects data if it receives the data.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> It's kind of pointless to ask that the 3rd party stop 'tracking' if tracking includes data that is sent to it, whether it asks for it or not. In many cases, the data is necessary to the conduct of the protocol (e.g. the IP address) or is sent without regard as to whether the party wants it (e.g. user-agent strings).
> 
> It's absurd to tell third parties "if you see a DNT:1 header, don't receive the IP address of the packet it was embedded in".
> 
> Can you explain?
> 
> > > 
> > > A party uses data if the party processes the data for any purpose.
> > 
> > The definition of collection does not include ambiguous carveouts for unshared or "transient" data, unlike the June Draft. The definition of use also encompasses storage, since reformatting or restructuring data may involve substantial access to that data.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
>