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

Re: ACTION-75: Write-up a hybrid of Do Not Profile and Do Not Cross-Site Track

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:43:02 -0800
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0DF4FBE8-1465-4BF0-A114-2023433DA601@stanford.edu>
To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Our current analytical structure begins with a very broad conception of collection.  One of the chief reasons for the approach is that it mandates clarity—we have to be extraordinarily explicit about what is allowed in exceptions.  I believe your proposal would muddle the standard's handling of protocol information (and logs) by unnecessarily conflating it with the high-level definition of "collection."  I much prefer the current course of providing an exception for protocol information, subject to some limits.

Jonathan

On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:51 AM, JC Cannon wrote:

> It seems that we are still conflating collection with receipt of logs by a server and processing of those logs for placement in a profile or otherwise.
>  
> I believe we all agreed that web servers must be able to receive logs in order for the Internet to work as it does. I would like to propose that the mere receipt of logs by a web server should not be considered collection or be constrained by the rules of collection.
>  
> However, any processing of the logs should be considered collection and be governed by our DNT standard.
>  
> Inasmuch as the logs will include a DNT signal, any retention policy that comes out of our standard should apply to those logs.
>  
> JC
>  
> From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:33 AM
> To: Nicholas Doty
> Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG
> Subject: RE: ACTION-75: Write-up a hybrid of Do Not Profile and Do Not Cross-Site Track
>  
> Nicholas,
>  
> There is the “general rule” and then there is the list of “operational exceptions”.  I believe I’ve been responding to the “general rule” and am relying on the “operational exceptions” to allow for the use of cross-site data that’s been collected for narrow purposes (such as security or general financial reporting, for example).
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:28 PM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: ACTION-75: Write-up a hybrid of Do Not Profile and Do Not Cross-Site Track
>  
> Hi Shane,
>  
> Sorry for the confusion, but this gives me more questions, as I didn't realize the Service Provider concept was important for this proposal.
>  
> Do you mean "Service Provider" in the sense of the outsourcing exception currently defined in 3.6.1.2 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#TypesofTrackingOutsourcing? I thought the Cross-Site Track proposal allowed third parties to collect siloed data for their own purposes (targeting advertising, etc.) which would be contrary to the current text as I understand it.
>  
> If this proposal is compatible with the current outsourcing exemption, then that's great news and I think we're one step closer to consensus.
>  
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 3rd parties MUST NOT collect data across multiple, non-affiliated or branded websites.
> <Non-Normative> Data collected by a 3rd party MUST be segregated according to the 1st party from which it was collected.  A 3rd party MUST NOT aggregate, correlate or use together data that was collected on different 1st party sites.
>  
> Do these next three statements only apply to data collected across multiple sites? Or to any data that a third party collects about a user?  [Correct – only data collected across multiple sites – as profiling only for a single site falls under the 1st party definition (as a Service Provider with no independent rights to use this data elsewhere).]
>  
> 3rd parties MUST NOT add collected data to a "profile" of a user.
>  
> 3rd parties MUST NOT leverage previously collected data to profile a user or to alter a user's experience.
>  
> 3rd parties MUST NOT attempt to personally identify a user.
>  
> If these only apply to data collected across multiple sites, I'm not sure the first at least is necessary. If I can't collect data about a user across sites, it would be impossible to use that not-collected data to add to a profile of them, right? 
>  
> [Logically you could argue it that way but we added this statements to make the prohibition very clear and to lower the risk of logic entanglement arguments.]
>  
> I see now, thanks. I still find the language confusing per the below, but I'm all for making statements clear even if it requires some level of redundancy.
>  
> 
> Also, if that assumption is right, then the language seems confusing to me; 3rd-parties would be allowed to add data to profiles, leverage previously collected data to alter a user's experience or identify a user, as long as they were doing so with data they hadn't combined across sites, right?
>  
> [Correct – as a Service Provider to a 1st party with no independent rights to use this data elsewhere.]
>  
> Thanks,
> Nick
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:48:14 UTC

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