- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:21:35 +0100
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 09:29:59 Shane Wiley wrote: > I would expect each company to minimize their data retention for this > business purpose to come in-line with their demonstrated need for the > data. AKA - minimization standard which is unique and specific to each > company. I have trouble understanding where the standard is when each company has their own. Given the absence of a standard the current incentives have let us to a situation where those who collect the most data will earn the most money. And given this fact, having no standard and no limits, the only thing left is a use limitation on collected tracking data against all incentives. Everything can be expressed by a mere use limitation and I know that some defend that model in the US. I do not have the feeling that relying solely on use limitations is a possible consensus. But I think even the industry can gain from some smart data minimization strategies. Data still has a cost, especially if it has to be maintained at a certain quality and is not just a mere data-graveyard where you don't know if something is actually correct or not. The suggestion is to get some more intelligence in frequency capping with DNT=1 and not just lay back and do use limitation while tracking as usual. I agree that this is a hard nut to crack Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:22:18 UTC