- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:10:37 +0100
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Jonathan, the following text isn't seen as optional AFAICT As long as there is: No Secondary Use Data Minimization and Transparency Reasonable Security No Personalization May be the chairs could clarify their understanding here. It also has unintended consequences if we remove those principles. E.g. if we do not have a limit to finality of the permitted use, none of the permitted uses make sense. Because data collected for security could be used for something else, say profiles. E.g. if we do not have data minimization (to the data needed), the amount of data that is collected under a permitted use would be unbound. --Rigo On Wednesday 27 March 2013 09:08:28 Jonathan Mayer wrote: > There's optional text in the current draft. > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > > Jonathan, > > > > On Friday 22 March 2013 17:54:21 Jonathan Mayer wrote: > > > The global minimization requirement is unsettled. One textual > > > option > > > only covers retention, the other also covers collection. We also > > > still have to calibrate the rigor of the global minimization > > > requirement. > > > > I don't see the dispute in the Draft. Can you give me a pointer > > where > > the "unsettled" comes from in your opinion? > > > > --Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 22:11:02 UTC