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

Re: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:57:06 +0100
Cc: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
Message-id: <875657FF-308C-4D05-B77E-E9D3B5BD1462@apple.com>
To: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>

On Oct 30, 2013, at 19:33 , Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Vinay,
> 
> I generally supportive but it seems odd to define the concept of “collection” through the lens of “retention” (retain) in that those were expected to be different definitions.

LoL.  We've had this discussion before, and I am with you.  But the lawyers seem to like the word 'collect', and it's not a ditch to die in.



I seem to recall I suggested before that we need something like:

Retain (this definition)
Share (we have a definition -- allowing data to flow to another party, roughly)
Use (we have a definition)
Receives (data arrives whether you wanted it or not, e.g. in a request)

and maybe
Collect -- the party took active steps to acquire the data from another party (e.g. you have access to a database operated by another party and you looked the user up there and got some more info)

I don't think we ever use Collect in this sense, and we have (currently) no rules that apply to it, so we don't need it.


>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Vinay Goel [mailto:vigoel@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:15 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Cc: David Singer; Lee Tien
> Subject: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect
>  
> 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

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 09:57:39 UTC

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