ACTION-339: Propose a refinement to debugging permitted use

Ian Fette's text proposes:

A graduated response a methodology where the action taken is 
proportional
to the size of the problem or risk that is trying to be mitigated. In 
the
context of this document, the term is used to describe an increase in 
the
collection of data about a user or transaction in response to a 
specific
problem that a party has become aware of, such as an increase
in fraudulent activity originating from a particular network or IP 
address
range resulting in increased logging of data relating to transactions 
from
that specific range of IP addresses as opposed to increased logging for 
all
users in general.

While agreeing with the gist of the text, I think it does both too much 
and too little. A proportionate response can be under certain extreme 
circumstances to maximise data gathering because there are concrete 
reasons that all ads are subject to fraudulent clicking behaviour from 
an unspecified number of IP-adresses. Graduated response implies slowly 
stepping up.

My suggestion would be not to use the term graduated response but 
'proportionate response' and that:

A proportionate response to concrete indications that fraudulent and/or 
other malicious HTTP requests are being made is one that proportional to 
the size and impact of the percieved problem or the risk that is being 
mitigated. In the context of this document, the term is used to describe 
the collection of data about users, devices and network adresses in 
response to a specific problem that a party has become aware of, such as 
an increase in fraudulent activitiy from a particular network or IP 
address range. Such increased data collection MUST be as specific and 
brief as possible and MAY only result in increased logging for all users 
in general in extreme cases.

Regards,

  Walter

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 16:30:43 UTC