Re: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect

Brooks, that's a useful analytical distinction, but I'm not sure it should make a difference here.  

To me, in both cases someone ends up with the data at issue and the first party is the but-for cause.  I assume that the entity that ends up with the data couldn't have gotten it w/o some voluntary act by the first party, like some sort of ad or analytics contract.  (Please correct me if that's wrong.)

Basically I see causation or responsibility as more relevant than actual possession.  

Lee

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2013, at 2:34 PM, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:

> Vinay,
> 
> I think this definition depends on what it is to "share".  My concern with "share" is that I think there are divergent opinions on its meaning which range from:
> Taking possession of a thing oneself and then passing/copying it on to another, to
> Facilitating another to take possession of a thing without ever possessing the thing yourself
> It would seem illogical to me to have a definition of collect that would mean I have collected a thing if I merely facilitated another to collect it but did not get it myself (and for that matter may not know that the other party received it).  True, you may wish that I had not facilitated the other to receive it, but the term just seems unfair if I never received it or had knowledge of the other parties specific receipt .   I am thinking specifically of a website having been deemed to have collected cross site pii merely because it embedded e.g. a social media icon which allowed another party to come into possession of such information.
> 
> Should we add "share" to the list of definitions in the TPE?
> 
> -Brooks
> -- 
> 
> Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com 
> brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
> 
> <image[152].png>
> 
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender immediately and delete the message.
> 
> From: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
> Subject: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:16 PM
> 
> Hi Working Group,
> 
> David S, Lee and I have been trying to consolidate our change proposals over the definition of ‘collect’.  We felt we were initially close with our different proposals, and after a few emails, we are all comfortable with the following language:
> 
> "A party collects data if it receives data within a network interaction and either shares that data with another party or retains that data after the network interaction is complete."
> 
> This language is dependent on having a definition of network interaction (Issue-228).  With that, I believe we are all comfortable removing our initial change proposals for collect  I believe this removes David’s change proposal around ‘retain’, but it does not effect Lee’s.  Lee’s change proposal for ‘retains’ is the only alternative text to the Editor’s draft.  I also believe that this encompasses Jonathan’s proposal (but have not verified that with him).  David/Lee — let me know if I got that wrong.
> 
> I’m going to work with Lee, Amy and Chris P to see if we can combine some of the change proposals around ‘share’.
> 
> -Vinay