Re: "cross-site"

Thanks, Jonathan.  Interesting proposal.  Can you please give me an example of what data a First Party site could transfer under the "may otherwise transfer data" language?


On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:42 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> Agreed.  Between the discussion in Santa Clara, this thread, and these threads, I think we're very close to a consensus on first-party obligations.  Some time ago I drafted this text for the compliance document:
> 
>> First-Party Requirements:
>> This standard imposes no requirements on first-party websites.  A first-party website MAY take steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request.
> 
> Here's what I would now propose:
> 
> First-Party Website Requirements
> 
> 1. Transfer of Data to a Third-Party Website
> A first-party website MUST NOT transfer data to a third-party website that the third-party website could not collect itself under this standard.  A first-party website MAY otherwise transfer data to a third-party website.
> 
> 2. Additional Voluntary Measures
> A first-party website MAY take additional steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request.
> 
> a. Example Voluntary Measures (Non-Normative)
> […]
> 
> ...and then...
> 
> Third-Party Website Requirements
> 
> 1. Transfer of Data from a First-Party Website
> If a third-party website receives data from a first-party website, the data is subject to the same collection, retention, and use limitations under this standard as if the third-party website had collected the data itself.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> (tags: ISSUE-17, ISSUE-51)
> 
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Ed Felten wrote:
> 
>> It seems to me that there might be substantial agreement here.  As I
>> understand John, he was positing two reasons for sending a DNT flag to
>> first parties: (1) when DNT is enabled, first parties shouldn't
>> circumvent the limits on third-party collection by collecting data and
>> then sharing it with third parties, and (2) some first parties might
>> choose voluntarily to go beyond what the standard requires when they
>> see a DNT flag.
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> 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" <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; <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 www.example.org
>>> 2. 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/
>>> 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
>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
>>> 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
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org