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

Re: ISSUE-60: proposed to close

From: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:38:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+Z3oOZh4Rc+VxK3StQPqZEiqrUOj1SgUJaFX83wO9XRNvV=RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>
Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Forgive me if I've missed it, but have we decided that there is or isn't a
reasonable way to make that determination?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Peter Eckersley
<peter.eckersley@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 

Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:39:00 UTC

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