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

Issue-10 housekeeping (was Re: technical, business, legal definitions)

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:47:35 -0500
Message-Id: <A03AF771-4794-48A9-BBF9-8D7F11DEE4AD@aleecia.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Issue maintenance only, nothing new to see here. 

[I noticed this discussion is not linked to an issue number, and could easily disappear under the weight of the mailing list traffic. We'll take this back up after we get the second public working draft out the door.]

	Aleecia

On Jan 26, 2012, at 5:37 AM, rob@blaeu.com wrote:

> I am fine with that. please use it in the text proposal.
> 
> Shane Wiley wrote:
>> I cannot think of any cases where a Service Provider is not somehow
>> receiving compensation for their services from the 1st Party.  If it
>> helps, we can add this to the definition to make it very clear.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rob@blaeu.com [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:00 AM
>> To: Shane Wiley
>> Cc: Haakon Bratsberg; Karl Dubost; rob@blaeu.com; public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: technical, business, legal definitions
>> 
>> Question, is there any contractual realtion between the controller and the
>> Service Provider? I mean, if there is a money-flow, there will most likely
>> be a paper trail.
>> 
>> If so, then Shane is correct.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> Shane Wiley wrote:
>>> Haakon,
>>> 
>>> Agreed - but our extended Service Provider definition includes "with no
>>> independent rights to use the data outside of 1st party direction" which
>>> is fairly aligned with the general legal tenets of a Data Processor
>>> definition.
>>> 
>>> Again - open for subjective interpretation due to the lack of more
>>> detail
>>> but generally "very close".
>>> 
>>> - Shane
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Haakon Bratsberg [mailto:haakon.bratsberg@opera.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:13 PM
>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>> Cc: Karl Dubost; rob@blaeu.com; public-tracking@w3.org
>>> (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>> Subject: Re: technical, business, legal definitions
>>> 
>>> On 25. jan. 2012, at 18:53, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Generally whether expected or not, we've come close to this same
>>>> structure (to some degree) with the following terms:
>>>> 
>>>> - 1st Party (Data Controller)
>>>> - Service Provider (Data Processor)
>>>> - 3rd Party (3rd Party)
>>> 
>>> I do not expect Service Provider = Data Processor to be globally true.
>>> It
>>> depends on the legal relationship between 1st Part and Service Provider.
>>> 
>>> Haakon
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - Shane
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:57 AM
>>>> To: rob@blaeu.com
>>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>>> Subject: technical, business, legal definitions
>>>> 
>>>> This morning in Bruxelles, Roy proposed to use the definitions of
>>>> European commission prose about
>>>> 
>>>> * Processor
>>>> * Third Parties
>>>> * Controller
>>>> 
>>>> Rob said that it was better to focus on technical definitions, than the
>>>> legal, business ones of Europe. Currently, I have the feeling that our
>>>> definitions are _not_ technical specifically in the compliance
>>>> document.
>>>> A technical definition of 1st party/3rd party in terms of the HTTP
>>>> protocol will be very defined but it's not what we have done so far.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
>>>> Developer Relations, Opera Software
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 01:48:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC