Re: Geolocation ISSUE-202

I've made this revision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2014May/0004.html

You can see my attempt at an explanatory note about geolocation data and deidentification here:
	http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#deidentified

(This satisfies my ACTION-449; I've marked ISSUE-202 as Pending Review.)
—Nick

On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:

> As discussed on the call this week, there seems to be consensus to close ISSUE-202 and removing the existing geolocation provisions from TCS.  We decided instead to adopt David Singer's/Mike O'Neill's proposal to add tentative non-normative language about the uniquely identifying characteristics of location data to the deidentification section, which the working group will turn to at a later date (deidentification being one of the more contested open issues remaining).
> 
> If you object to either course of action, please do so to the public mailing list before next Wednesday's call.
> 
> On May 9, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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).
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>