Re: noa

I have no problem with simply defining it as “out of scope”.  We may as well call a spade a spade.  Data is out of scope if it cannot be …. and is restricted from becoming …. 

On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:58 , Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Mike O'Neill wrote:
> 
>> Do we need to define noa? Why not just have a sentence in the scope like this:
>>  
>> Data is outside the scope of this specification if it cannot be used to infer information about, or otherwise be linked to, a particular consumer, computer, or other device.
> 
> Because the main purpose of using a word here is to give implementations
> an idea of how far they have to go in order to satisfy the requirements.
> If we use a term that has an established meaning (where we intend
> that established meaning), it makes it easier for folks to reuse or
> enhance tools that already do that thing.
> 
>> Or use anonymised which generally means the same thing. We keep de-identified only for permitted use data.
> 
> Yes, I think it is pretty clear now that continued use of de-identified
> is not appropriate.  It came from the HIPPA side of the universe, where
> it exists for very good reasons, but those reasons do not apply to DNT
> because our requirements are not about public disclosure of health research.
> 
> ....Roy
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 16:57:37 UTC