- From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:32:45 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Rigo, I don't follow - could you please try rephrasing? Thanks, Jonathan On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Jonathan, Roy, > > On Wednesday 07 March 2012 12:16:50 Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> I (and, as I understand it, quite a few others in the group) favor a >>> blanket third-party collection/retention/use limitation, with an >>> exception for information that could not be used to correlate browsing >>> activity and an exception for protocol information. (There are, of >>> course, some fine details we might not agree on. For example: What >>> does a server have to do if the client sends an old ID cookie? A "hi, >>> here's my SSN" cookie? What does a server have to do over time with >>> protocol information?) >> Please understand that those aren't exceptions. They are contradictions. >> We cannot protect against fraud and simultaneously blanket-prohibit >> collection. We can prohibit use for tracking and retention beyond what >> is necessary for the fraud/legal/security exemptions. > > IMHO, your dispute here is a red herring. If even the ePrivacy Directive > allows for protocol chatter for security and normal interactions, we > shouldn't go beyond that here. See Article 6 Jonathan: > http://eur- > lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002L0058:20091219:EN:HTML > > So the best is the enemy of the good here. I still think we can reach > consensus on a definition. > > Rigo >
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:33:18 UTC