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 20:02:34 +0000
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141D3088@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>

We're attempting to build a document that says "this is what you do when DNT:1" - not a document on how to manage all privacy issues everywhere.  That perspective continues to slow down the progress of the group.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:42 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 24 - Consensus

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.


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.


Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 20:03:55 UTC

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