Data minimization (ISSUE-31)

As discussed on the call last week, Mike O'Neill has withdrawn his change proposal (http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposals_on_data_minimization) (he decided the existing text already effectively accomplished what he wanted) so we are slated to close this issue by next week unless anyone proposes other text.

In the past, I have heard arguments to revise the existing editors' draft language either to make it more stringent or to make it more flexible.  I know some advocates have said that DNT should mean that unique, persistent identifiers can NEVER be collected and set when DNT:1 is on; on the other hand, some in industry have argued that the presumption against unique identifiers unless necessary for a permitted use is too burdensome.

If anyone wants to provide a suggested amendment to reflect either of these positions, please do so on the mailing list (and add to the wiki if you're feeling particularly ambitious).  If not, we will close the issue and retain the editors' draft language.