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

RE: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:09:46 -0800
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Sean Harvey <sharvey@google.com>
CC: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D04DBFF1A@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Outside of Jonathan's caveat (waiting to hear more on this), I agree that the DNT signal should not only halt the continued development of a user profile based on historical activity, but it should also halt any further use of a pre-existing user profile based on historical activity outside of previously agreed to exceptions (1st party, site specific exceptions, 3rd party acting as a party ONLY for that 1st party, etc.).

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:35 PM
To: Sean Harvey
Cc: David Wainberg; Jeffrey Chester; JC Cannon; <public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

Makes sense to me.

On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Sean Harvey wrote:


I defer to the group on this, but my own thinking was originally as follows:

If I visited a shopping site for a pair of shoes, decided against the purchase in favor of something else and then became annoyed with retargeted ads offering that same pair of shoes to me on other locations across the web, my setting of DNT (in my mind at least) should not allow the retargeting network to continue hitting me with more retargeted ads for that same pair of shoes because it was previously "collected with consent".

again, this is just my opinion. also, if i'm on anyone's holiday shopping list this year, my shoe size is 11...












On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:48 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com<mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com>> wrote:
Assuming the data was collected with consent for that purpose, why not?


On 11/29/11 12:39 PM, Sean Harvey wrote:
to my mind the first party should not be using any third party data for targeting in a DNT-on context, and I thought that was stated elsewhere in the email chain, though I can go back and check.



On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com<mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com>> wrote:
This raises an interesting issue with how this is going to work. If the user engaged DNT after the data was collected, we probably have consensus that prior collected data should not be used. However, if the user had DNT at the time the data was collected, but granted an exception to DNT, the data is ok to be used. The problem is, how does the 1st party know the difference? It will fall on the 3rd party to honor the user's choices, and the 1st party will have to trust them.



On 11/29/11 9:50 AM, Jeffrey Chester wrote:
If a DNT system is to work, it must address how first party sites incorporate third party data and also use ad exchanges.  If a user has said they do not want to be tracked via a third party data service, such as eXelate, BlueKai or Experian (for example) then such user data should not be automatically imported or used by the First party site.  Sites increasingly mix in-house data with third party targeting data.  A user should have reasonable control of this process under DNT.



Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org/>

On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:59 PM, JC Cannon wrote:


John,

I believe we are already in agreement that DNT will not apply to 1st party sites. I understand the need to clarify that 3rd-party sharing will be limited to certain exceptions, but I don't want to revisit something we have already agreed on.

JC
Twitter<http://twitter.com/jccannon7>

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:47 PM
To: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
Subject: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

Colleagues,

I've been thinking a bit more about the idea of "1st Party" obligations if we use the frame of a 1st Party and 3rd Party distinction.  It seems clear to me that there is consensus that the 1st Party must not share data (some will say there are exceptions) with a 3rd party when DNT is enabled.

It does seem to me there are further obligations.  When I go to a 1st party  site and interact with it, I assume it is using my information for that transaction.  If I
have DNT enabled, I don't have ANY expectation that it will continue to use that information beyond that transaction.  The site should ask me if it can continue to store the information and use it beyond that specific visit to the site.

In other words from my perspective as a user, a 1st Party site should treat me as if I had cleared all my cookies the next time I visit the site if I have DNT enabled.

When DNT is enabled, a 1st party should treat each session with a user as an entirely new session unless it has been given permission to store his information and use it again.

73s,
John
----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041<tel:310-392-7041>
Cell: 310-292-1902<tel:310-292-1902>
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>





--
Sean Harvey
Business Product Manager
Google, Inc.
212-381-5330<tel:212-381-5330>
sharvey@google.com<mailto:sharvey@google.com>



--
Sean Harvey
Business Product Manager
Google, Inc.
212-381-5330
sharvey@google.com<mailto:sharvey@google.com>

----------
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<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 21:11:08 UTC

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