RE: Geolocation ISSUE-202

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

But what does ephemeral mean here. If a third-party can associate someone's location with another longitudinal identifier such as an IP address, or data in localStorage or the cache is used to link geo-location samples in different "contexts" to be from the same individual, most people would define that as tracking. If multiple devices consistently deliver the same geo-location then they are probably situated in an individual's home, and they can be "attributed" to that individual.

I do not think we should close this issue until we have addressed the other ones about the use of identifiers, or at least added text along the lines David S. suggested.



I 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org]
> Sent: 09 May 2014 14:35
> To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> Subject: Geolocation ISSUE-202
> 
> On the call this week, we discussed the geolocation compliance provisions that
> are currently in the TCS.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-
> compliance.html#geolocation
> 
> I know that some folks have objected to this language for a while, and there's an
> argument that this provision makes less sense given the definition of tracking
> that we have adopted.  If DNT:1 means don't collect data about me across
> contexts, why should third-parties have to limit ephemeral contextual use of
> geolocation information?
> 
> No one on the call supported retaining the geolocation provision, though David
> Singer proposed adding non-normative language (perhaps to the
> deidentification section or after the definition of tracking) noting that precise
> geolocation information can be uniquely identifying over time.  These proposals
> are referenced in the wiki:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Geolocation
> 
> If anyone wants to argue in favor of retaining the existing substantive
> restriction, please make a case for it; otherwise, I'm inclined to remove it
> because of the objections we heard on Wednesday (and previously).
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.2.42.4591 - http://www.gpg4o.de/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTbeBEAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JNMkH+wVDvNmbYn610J4py+DTlufa
5Y+TaOXpUyRtDXknItzEtS2AM5Oxt5rOynUNUO7ESSw6SqhiqhV2HYx9Tfb7xGxs
VBEOEI4DGW8N0qBxQTkH7Yu6szl4ERbvW3c7buGbp/jBQuiJuOW1qVCDiFcCvvDY
sCNhvHbWSNxO9XbBEylwBa9LJdK2NyEz6m19+TIkROF1SM/BT+jgzGbaL/GONEGl
WGkPMhMp01Yzowtb+xodyhAsTsy3nAbP9eBIjOnKgKfEGSNGeGOHEchIGflUSQ7i
Kd4wSsBXSIL8vVpxLNM5l1dcqmvvZ2di0pUzKdlQuiRhgTXc7Yzm5lEu+X/+3do=
=BpBV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Saturday, 10 May 2014 08:16:45 UTC