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

RE: Issue 24 - Consensus

From: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:59:30 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141D2E7B@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>

The initial language already provides for that perspective (paragraph 1).  We already call out the concepts of data minimization (don't collect/retain all data all the time) and data proportionality for all Permitted Uses.  The additional language I'm asking to be removed is wasteful in that context, overemphasizes a dimension of minimization that won't be used much in reality, and is redundant to the concepts already asked to be employed for all Permitted Uses, and unneedfully makes the document longer and more difficult to read.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:42 AM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 24 - Consensus

Hi Shane

I think some of your concerns relate to 'tipping off' the suspect that they may be being watched, but of course, increased logging doesn't do that.

The general principle "don't collect all the data all the time" seems pretty relevant, and as a recommendation, not terribly harmful. Basically, if you can justify what and why you are collecting, the spec says 'ok'.

On Oct 23, 2013, at 10:24 , Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Walter,
> This isn't a question of proportionality - and that is already covered as a guiding principle for ALL Permitted Uses.  This is about setting up a false expectation where the technical realities have already proven this is not viable.  
> - Shane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:01 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 24 - Consensus
> On 23/10/2013 18:12, Shane M Wiley wrote:
>> I would respectfully request the second paragraph be dropped and we 
>> stick with the initial paragraph only as this covers the issue 
>> completely, mentions "graduated response" but doesn't over-emphasis 
>> that perspective.
> This is extremely objectionable. The principle of proportionality is a core concept in privacy.
> Regards,
> Walter

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 19:00:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC