Re: New Change Proposal: New text for definition of Shares (Issue-16)

Hi Vinay,

Thanks for sending this (and for separating these proposals so cleanly). I agree that this is covered by our existing ISSUE 16.

I've added this as a change proposal to the wiki:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Transience_Collection#Shares_as_enabling_.28update.29

I suspect your text is simple enough in using defined terms that it could be interpreted as a clarification edit to the current editors' draft and would be a friendly amendment to those who supported the existing text. However, your proposal might also be merged with Lee's proposal, if Lee would accept "collect, retain or use" in place of "receive".

Thanks,
Nick

On September 24, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com> wrote:

> Current text: "A party shares data if the party enables another party to receive or access that data."
> 
> Proposed new text: "A party shares data if the party enables another party to collect, retain or use that data."
> 
> Rationale: The introduction of 'receive or access' does not make sense nor define what receive or access means.  For example, a company is not 'using' data if it merely forwards it to another party.  Yet the company is then sharing the data since it is providing access to the data.  And, in the current text, there are no restrictions upon first parties sharing data (there is a restriction against 'passing' data).  I believe it would be better to use defined terms here of what we're actually trying to stop — a company from allowing another party from collecting, retaining or using data as a workaround to the DNT:1 signal.  This way, if a company receives a DNT:1 signal, it cannot have another party (who may or may not be complying with DNT) collect, retain or use data.
> 
> Draws upon: Issue-16
> 
> -Vinay
>