Re: TPE Editorial Proposal to Remove Another Hard Dependency on the Compliance Specification

Hi Roy!

thanks for the clairification.

The point below is an important point: While we cannot prevent a site to 
use the term "tracking" in a compliance regime and define tracking in a 
different way ("In this document, tracking has not the meaning define in 
the TPE but instead is defined as [...]",
I would only recommend this if the goal is to mislead or confuse the 
average reader that is likely to have a hard time untangling the 
terminology.

Consider a privacy policy that first re-defines the terms collection, 
retention, data subject, ... in non-intuitive ways ("In this document, 
retention is defined as physical storage of data printed on paper - and 
no, we never retain your data" ;-).

The fair approach IMHO would be  to use the defined meaning and just 
describe the practices of a given site.


Regards,
matthias


Am 08.03.2014 09:19, schrieb Roy T. Fielding:
>> I believe the core concern is that the TPE hard coded a definition 
>> for Tracking where a compliance standard may have a slightly 
>> different definition.  I’m looking for a way to bridge the two worlds.
>
> I don't find that a useful phrasing of the situation.  Using the same
> term in two different ways within the same document, or different from a
> normative dependency like TPE, is guaranteed to confuse the average
> reader and will have no effect whatsoever on the user's preference.
> A user might even consider it deliberately misleading if such definitions
> were mixed in a privacy policy.