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 10:57:51 +0100
Cc: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
Message-id: <CDC189A8-F5AB-42FE-BD21-6DE22371AE78@apple.com>
To: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>

On Oct 30, 2013, at 19:49 , Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hi Shane,
> 
> My change proposal (nor this consolidated change proposal) effect the editor’s draft of ‘retain’.  David submitted a change proposal for retain, but I believe will retract that proposal.  So, I believe the only two remaining alternatives for ‘retain’ are Lee’s proposal and the Editor’s draft.
> 
> David felt strongly to leave the idea of retention within the definition of collect because he didn’t want a company to have collected data if it actually wasn’t trying to collect data but was sent the data as part of the HTTP transaction and subsequently dumped the data.  David — did I get your point right?

yes, you don't get to choose what data arrives in a request, so putting rules on that is silly

> 
> -Vinay
> 
> From: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM
> To: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
> Subject: RE: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect
> 
> 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.
>  
> - 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 09:59:18 UTC

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