- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:38:41 -0700
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Matthias, I agree with the proposal if FIRST PARTIES = AFFILIATES in this definition. That appears to be "open" from the language below: A FIRST PARTY MUST be able to reliably determine that - The user has explicitly visited a web-site of this party - That the user has consciously and willingly interacted with it An AFFILIATE MUST be able to reliably determine [criteria defined elsewhere: suggestions were - co-branding - co-ownership - same origin...] All other parties SHOULD be considered THIRD PARTY. - Shane Shane Wiley VP, Privacy & Data Governance Yahoo! -----Original Message----- From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Schunter Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:25 AM To: public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Proposed definition of 1st parties Hi Folks, enclosed is the proposal on a definition of 1st parties as indicated on the call. An assumption is that FIRST PARTIES and AFFILIATES will later need to satisfy relaxed requirements compared to THIRD PARTIES. The goals of the def are: - Not to fix the mechanisms. - To put the burden of proof/implementation/mechanism/design on the parties that want to fall under the exemptions. Regards, matthias A FIRST PARTY MUST be able to reliably determine that - The user has explicitly visited a web-site of this party - That the user has consciously and willingly interacted with it An AFFILIATE MUST be able to reliably determine [criteria defined elsewhere: suggestions were - co-branding - co-ownership - same origin...] All other parties SHOULD be considered THIRD PARTY. -- Dr. Matthias Schunter, MBA IBM Research - Zurich, Switzerland Ph. +41 (44) 724-8329, schunter(at)acm.org PGP 989A A3ED 21A1 9EF2 B005 8374 BE0E E10D VCard: http://www.schunter.org/schunter.vcf
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 17:39:30 UTC