- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:54:11 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Roy, On Monday 19 November 2012 04:45:38 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I do care about context and reasonable user expectations with > regard to data sharing, and know for a fact that neither one > can be cleanly delineated by Web technology. Hence, my solution > is to allow the human operators of sites to expand the context > only if it is reasonably expected by the user. In other words, > if there is no technical means to bound the context, then we > shouldn't even be trying -- just define what is not allowed > to be shared outside the context and let regulators inform and > enforce the boundaries of the context based on user expectations. I hear from different sites that it is about context. May be a just made the assumption that "browsing the Web" is a meaningful delimiter. I'm simply afraid that a definition of tracking reduces the scope to red impair data packets at full moon and that we apply DNT:1 and the collection limitation only to those and collect everything else full throttle even in the presence of DNT:1. So the scope must be large as the permitted uses carve exceptions into that large scope. What would be your context description. I know mine was a bit short hand. But I'm not a protocol designer. So give me a hint what you mean and we can test if it is too narrow to let the entire rule- system survive (no prob for EU as your definition is overruled by law anyway: it applies to all personal data) Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 22:54:36 UTC