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

Re: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect

From: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:37:28 -0700
Message-Id: <A2CFDF63-FC30-4907-B948-3551B0C07362@eff.org>
Cc: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org(public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Two issues:  what's the right word or term; what's the consequence.

I'd be happy to label it "facilitating collection," just saying that to me the "tracking" seems equivalent from consumer PoV.  

I know we're in a defining phase for TPE but we're all mindful of  compliance implications, right?


Lee

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:51 AM, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:

> Lee,
> 
> Without addressing the merits of your larger point, I remain extremely worried about torturing language and taking words so far from their generally understood meaning.  To say I "collected" something when I never received it and did not know what it is, just seems to strain language too far.    
> 
> -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[160].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: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:16 AM
> To: Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
> Cc: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org(public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> Subject: 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
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 16:37:59 UTC

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