- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 11:27:29 -0700
- To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
On Apr 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Walter van Holst wrote: > On 25/04/2014 23:53, Justin Brookman wrote: >> On the call last week, there did not appear to be any interest in >> revising the existing Editors' Draft Text on this issue: >> >> 8. Unknowing Collection >> >> If a party learns that it possesses data in violation of this >> recommendation, it must, where reasonably feasible, delete or >> de-identify that data at the earliest practical opportunity, even >> if it was previously unaware of such information practices despite >> reasonable efforts to understand its information practices. >> >> Jonathan Mayer had previously proposed language that was (arguably) >> more restrictive; however, no one spoke up to support that proposal >> (available >> here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Unknowing). >> >> If no one wants to argue for this or a different change proposal, we >> will close this issue out in two weeks' time. > To be honest, I don't see any reason for the 'reasonably feasible' > qualifier. So I'm in favour of Jonathan's proposal or nothing at all, > since it is a no-brainer that if a party accidentally collects data, it > should destroy it as soon as possible. I favor nothing at all, since the actual requirements should be implied by the other requirements permitting retention (i.e., if you don't have permission to retain, then the alternative is obvious). BTW, I am assuming here that "party" is meant to exclude/enfold the party's service providers, since a service provider does not have an independent right to delete the data. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 18:29:16 UTC