Re: tracking-ISSUE-215: data hygiene approach / tracking of URL data and browsing activity [Compliance June]

Jack, Shane,

2 clarifying question: 

- Is the DAA proposal such that it allows to have a dataflow seperate from the R-Y-G data hygene flow. This is the extraction of interest based categories BEFORE going from R to Y to G? This is somtimes called aggregated scoring.

- Is the DAA proposal working on the assumption that data may be retained in Y for 18 months?

The first question is the same one as asked during the call on June 26: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/26-dnt-minutes

<rvaneijk> shane, you will need to drop the aggregated scoring :) !

Peter: Will use dates and if necessary go to a chairs' decision. There will continue to be a process, spend more time on most important issues, but will discuss all of them.

<Marc> To follow up on Shane's comment, many many people are out next week.

<WileyS> Rob - disagree - as that is de-linked from history so should be permitted.

Thanks,
Rob


Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

>tracking-ISSUE-215: data hygiene approach / tracking of URL data and
>browsing activity [Compliance June]
>
>http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/215
>
>Raised by: Jack Hobaugh
>On product: Compliance June
>
>NAI, DAA and others have proposed an approach around "data hygiene",
>where the definitions of tracking and de-identified are narrowed, such
>that some personalization can continue based on characteristics but not
>URL data. 
>
>PDF redline:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/att-0466/NAI-DAA-DMA_June_26_draft_compared_to_June_22_Tracking_Compliance_and_Scope_copy.pdf
>
>Amendments here:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0146.html
>
>(The full proposal also recommends changes on other more easily
>separable issues, for which we have other change proposals in
>progress.)