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

Re: Issue-39: Tracking of Geographic Data

From: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:34:15 -0800
Message-ID: <4F2C6EF7.3030106@mozilla.com>
To: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
CC: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
ACTION-65 ISSUE-39

Proposed text. Compare with text currently in
[S-4.1.2](http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#third-party-compliance)

~~~~
### Compliance by a third party {#third-party-compliance}

If the operator of a third-party domain receives a communication to
which a [DNT-ON] header is attached:

1. that operator MUST NOT collect or use information related to that
communication outside of the explicitly expressed exceptions as defined
within this standard;
2. that operator MUST NOT use information about previous communications
in which the operator was a third party, outside of the explicitly
expressed exceptions as defined within this standard;
3. that operator [MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT] retain information about
previous communications in which the operator was a third party, outside
of the explicitly expressed exceptions as defined within this standard.

#### Non-Normative Discussion

It is acceptable to use data sent as part of this particular network
interaction when composing a response to a [DNT-ON] request, but it is
not acceptable to store that data any longer than needed to reply. For
instance, it would be appropriate to use an IP address to guess which
country a user is in, to avoid showing them an advertisement for
products or services unavailable where they live.

When using request-specific information to compose a reply, some levels
of detail may feel invasive to users, and may violate their expectations
about Do Not Track. These sorts of detailed assessments should be avoided.

*Reasonable behavior*: A user visits you from an IP address which a
general geo-IP database suggests is in the NYC area, where it is 6pm on
a Friday. You choose to show an advertisement for theaters and
restaurants in the area.

*Invasive behavior*: A user visits you from an IP address which suggests
that they are in a particular ZIP+4, which has a distinctive demographic
profile. Their user-agent indicates that they are a Mac user, further
narrowing their expected profile. You serve them an ad for business
within a few blocks of them which specializes in items which their
expected profile indicates they may enjoy.

In this example, even though the decision about which ad to serve was
based exclusively on request specific information, but was still
tailored to a highly-specific user profile. In particular, the
estimation of a user's location to within a single ZIP+4 may make a user
feel that they are being followed closely, even if the decision was made
on the fly, and the information was only held ephemerally.

~~~


Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 23:34:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:24 UTC