Re: Issue 24 - Consensus from Walter van Holst on 2013-10-24 (public-tracking@w3.org from October 2013)

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:41:37 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <526977F1.5050509@xs4all.nl>

On 24/10/2013 20:59, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> David,
> 
> 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,

I am happy to drop the language on graduated response provided that the
principle of data proportionality applies under *all* circumstances,
including DNT:0 and DNT:unset.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 19:42:05 UTC