- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:35:44 -0500
- To: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
- CC: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>, Rachel Thomas <RThomas@the-dma.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Louis Mastria <lou@aboutads.info>, "Chris Mejia (chris.mejia@iab.net)" <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, "mgroman@networkadvertising.org" <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, "Brendan Riordan-Butterworth (Brendan@iab.net)" <Brendan@iab.net>
On 11/15/12 11:35 AM, Lauren Gelman wrote: > > So Jonathan's definition is cleaner because it gives industry a bright > line definition of how to comply-- which I know my clients prefer. > But my sense is that both accomplish the same thing. > > I disagree that it's cleaner. But that aside, my question to proponents of Jonathan's definition is whether you believe the efforts required to unlink data, and the subsequent loss of value of the data, should be proportionate to the risks associated with the data. If so, what's your measure of the proportionality?
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:36:15 UTC