W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2012

ISSUE-60: proposed to close

From: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:23:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYJvn+aN2WYmdASVUvqcvY1EXcgetqAzqERk6iq7wW-WtUVug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Issue 60 raises the question of whether a recipient of a DNT: 1 header
knows whether it is in fact a first or a third party.  This can in some
instances be ambiguous: for instance a host of an image may not be able to
tell the difference between users who follow a hyperlink to that image (in
which case they host is a 1st party) and users who are seeing the image
randomly embedded on some other page (in which case the host is arguably a
3rd party)

The text that Tom, Jonathan and I drafted resolves this with the following
language:

A "first party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that can
infer with high
probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it.
Otherwise, a
party is a third party.

A "third party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that
cannot infer with high
probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it.

If the authors of other drafts are willing to accept our "high probability"
standard for resolving this issue, it can be closed.

-- 
Peter
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:23:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:27 UTC