W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

Re: "cross-site"

From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:28:00 +0000
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeffreychester@me.com>
CC: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "<public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <977B1EA1-9761-45E1-8E73-1F705F4C692E@iab.net>
Sorry Jeff and John, but the FTC and industry are on record with this issue. Below are my original statements, none of which have been rebuked by the FTC:

"I have to agree with Shane that first parties are outside of the scope of the DNT proposal.  In the U.S. this has been widely agreed too, with the Federal Trade Commission stating that:

"The (OBA Privacy) report concludes that fewer privacy concerns may be associated with "first-party" and "contextual" advertising than with other behavioral advertising, and concludes that it is not necessary to include such advertising within the scope of the principles."  <http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/behavad.shtm> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/behavad.shtm.

While I understand that this is meant to be a global document, U.S. companies operate under the assumption that they are not covered by third party requirements, which raise more consumer concerns.

Furthermore, it seems that making non-binding policy statements as to what first parties "could" or "should" do is not within scope of the W3C mission nor this particular document.

It is unlikely that first parties would adhere to restrictions that they have been told should not affect them and thus inclusion of such provisions would diminish adoption of any W3C standard and would subject companies that are outside of the scope of this document to unnecessary and unjustified public scrutiny."

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:08 PM, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeffreychester@me.com<mailto:jeffreychester@me.com>> wrote:

The ftc's position on first and third parties is evolving, I believe.  We have provided them with evidence that the distinctions  between first and third parties has eroded because of real time bidding and other data integration practices embraced by online publishing. As First parties import outside data for user targeting from many sources simultaneously, a user's decision regarding DNT for such provider partner sites could be ignored, I fear.


Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
Washington DC
<http://www.democraticmedia.org>www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org>
<mailto:Jeff@democraticmedia.org>Jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:Jeff@democraticmedia.org>

On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:31 PM, John Simpson <<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>> wrote:

Mike,

The FTC hasn't taken a position on this.  That only happens when the commissioners vote and they have not.  I think what you're doing is predicting what you think a majority would say if they voted.

Best,
John

On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:

This is where there is a fundamental split amongst the parties. We had a discussion several weeks ago about the first party obligations and I pointed out that IAB and my member companies generally support the U.S. FTC position that consumers don't expect first parties to be subject to such restrictions.  Those positions have not changed.

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:56 PM, "John Simpson" <<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>> wrote:

Shane,

I don't understand why we would say that a 1st party most likely will not be subject to the DNT signal.  If we continue to use the 1st party/ 3rd party distinction, it will likely (almost certainly) have different and probably fewer obligations than a third party. It should still be subject to the signal.

As a user I want the 1st party site to know that I have DNT configured.  As a 1st party site operator I want to know a visitor has configured DNT and is sending me the signal.  There will be some "musts", ie not sharing data from a DNT configured user with 3rd parties, but if I am a responsible site operator I may chose to go further in honoring the DNT request.  For instance I might chose to not even include the visitor in my analytics. I need to know if  DNT is configured and the way this happens is by being subject to the DNT signal.

The obligations are different, but its important that we think of all sites being subject to the DNT signal, once it is configured in the browser.

73s,
John

On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:

Karl,

This statement is an attempt to remove the concern that a 1st party, which will mostly likely not be subject to the DNT signal, does not have a backdoor opportunity to pass user data directly to a 3rd party (aka - closing a loop-hole).  3rd parties present on the 1st party's web site should honor the DNT signal directly.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 5:40 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: John Simpson; Jules Polonetsky; Nicholas Doty; Roy T. Fielding; Mark Nottingham; <<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org><mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: "cross-site"


Le 16 nov. 2011 à 23:30, Shane Wiley a écrit :
Alter statement to read "First parties must NOT share user specific data with 3rd parties for those user who send the DNT signal and have not granted a site-specific exception to the 1st party."  This will leave room for sharing with Agents/Service Providers/Vendors to the 1st party -- as well as sharing aggregate and anonymous data with "others" (general reporting, for example).

I guess you mean
s/DNT signal/DNT:1 signal"

Trying to understand what you are saying.

1. User sends DNT:1 to a website with domain name <http://www.example.org/> <http://www.example.org/> www.example.org<http://www.example.org>
2. <http://www.example.org/> <http://www.example.org/> www.example.org<http://www.example.org> collects data about the user
  (IP address and categories of pages the user visits)
3. Company Acme Hosting Inc. (a 3rd party) has access to these
  data NOT through the Web but through an access to the logs file.


What is happening?


--
Karl Dubost - <http://dev.opera.com/> <http://dev.opera.com/> http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software



----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/><http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org><mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>


----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 05:29:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:22 UTC