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

Re: [Issue-5] [Action-77] Defining Tunnel-Vision 'Do Not (Cross-Site) Track'

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:47:18 +0000
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <83C0EAB0-3F57-40E0-A03B-11246D81F073@apple.com>
To: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>

On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:00 , Bryan Sullivan wrote:

> "Records derived when DNT is on (1), MUST be held separately from other
> data derived when DNT is not on (1).": By "MUST be held separately", you
> are not intending to imply any particular technical or physical approach
> to the "separation" are you?

No, just that the two databases must be kept distinct (you, before you turned on DNT, and you, after you did).

> 
> As noted in other threads, "research/market-analytics" and "product
> improvement" are important exceptions that depend upon short-term
> retention of data (typically not PII though) prior to analysis/aggregation.

This is about separating records that are 'polluted' with full-on tracking, and records that are 'tunnel-vision';  they mustn't be mixed.

> 
> Otherwise your definition looks very close.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan
> 
> On 1/29/12 8:15 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> This is a revision of my previous email, and a response to Action-77,
>> which is one of 6 (?) actions related to Issue-5.  Please ask questions
>> as needed to clarify, and I will write a composite revised definition, so
>> we can close Action-77, and (once that's been done for the other
>> formulations) Issue-5.
>> 
>> This is an alternative to restricting tracking via a 1st/3rd party
>> distinction. I want to emphasize, I am doing this to explore and learn,
>> not to 'promote' any particular direction.  I hope people find it helpful.
>> 
>> (All these definitions etc. rely on being able to define "site" or
>> "party", by the way.  I don't see how to escape that, as many have
>> pointed out, since it's within a 'party' that information flows, and so
>> on.)
>> 
>> 
>> RULE
>> 
>> Informally, we allow sites only to record what they do and learn
>> *directly* about the interaction between themselves and the user.
>> 
>> The formal rule is this:
>> 
>> When DNT is on (1):
>> Data records that both identify or could identify, a single USER, and
>> also identify, or could identify, a single SITE (that is part of a Party),
>> * MUST identify or be capable of identifying no other Party, or site that
>> is part of any other Party;
>> * MUST be derived only from transactions directly between the identified
>> Party and the user, possibly combined with publicly available data,
>> * MUST be available/accessible only to/by the identified Party,
>> * MUST NOT contain user-specific non-public information derived or
>> passed, directly or indirectly, from any other Party,
>> 
>> If the data is held by another party on behalf of the identified party,
>> that holding party MUST have no rights to use the data.
>> 
>> Records derived when DNT is on (1), MUST be held separately from other
>> data derived when DNT is not on (1).
>> 
>> EXCEPTIONS
>> 
>> not needed:
>> 
>> Outsourcing exception: not needed, it's part of the rule in the first
>> place.
>> 1st-party exception: not needed: all sites/parties are allowed to
>> remember the user's interactions with them.
>> Unidentifiable data exception: not needed, as the definition here only
>> concerns user-identifiable data in the first place (which can probably be
>> true for all rule sets)
>> Operational exceptions:
>> frequency capping, story-boarding: not needed; the ad site is permitted
>> to remember what IT served YOU, just not a lot of why (which 1st party
>> you were on, etc.)
>> financial logging: separate un-identified records can be kept on the
>> number of impressions on a 1st-party site (why is this not true for all
>> proposals?)
>> 3rd party auditing: again, is it necessary to keep a record that
>> identifies a specific user?
>> 
>> potentially needed:
>> 
>> Operational exceptions:
>> security/fraud: an exception may be needed here, especially if
>> cross-site fraud is to be detected
>> research/market-analytics: we don't have a current formulation, and the
>> title is broad enough to allow almost anything, so I can't tell
>> product improvement: this is an issue, again with a serious risk of
>> slippery slope
>> debugging: yes, an exception may be needed for debugging
>> Legal exception: tracking to the extent required by law
>> 
>> Comments on TUNNEL-VISION
>> 
>> If a user runs sometimes with DNT:0 and sometimes DNT:1, they will end up
>> with two records at sites, one with a lot of other-site data, and the
>> second record with tunnel-vision.  Correlation by the site would enable
>> merging these; this is the weakest aspect of this strawman, IMHO.  Under
>> the alternative 'cross-site' formulation, I think each site would keep
>> N+1 records (1 for when DNT is off, and N for the number of 1st party
>> sites 'seen' by this 3rd party for this user).
>> 
>> Frequency capping and storyboarding by advertisers are now permitted; you
>> ARE allowed to remember what ad you showed this (anonymous) user, since
>> that was *your* transaction.  You're limited in remembering only
>> site-generic 'why' -- you cannot remember 'they visited Sears and so I
>> showed a dishwasher advert'.
>> 
>> If the user starts interacting with *you*, you can remember that also; we
>> don't need language to make this an exception, or 'promotion' from 3rd to
>> 1st party.
>> 
>> Redirection services can remember basically only that the user was active
>> on the web, since everything else they know (the original URL, the
>> re-direct) either identify or could be used to identify another site.
>> 
>> The attraction of this rule is that many fewer exceptions are needed.
>> The downside of this formulation is that it relies on sites not to
>> re-correlate the records, though there is still a lot of data that cannot
>> be recorded.
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 08:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC