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

Re: ACTION 124

From: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:26:52 -0800
Cc: Amy Colando (LCA) <acolando@microsoft.com>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <21756927-B72A-44FC-AC01-2FBA8E1E6B04@eff.org>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Taking this back to yesterday:

I'd like to explore this a bit more, because I think I agree with Nick  
on this point -- and I question whether the proposed definition  
reduces subjectivity overall.

Let's first assume for purposes of this email that less subjectivity  
in the definition is better.  Nick is right that "clear to consumers"  
cannot be entirely pinned down, there will be a gray area, so this  
reproduces the claimed problem with the short-and-sweet
> 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.


Moreover, other language in the proposed definition also creates gray  
areas, e.g. "reasonable efforts to disclose, in a manner easily  
discoverable by Users"; "the power to exercise a controlling influence."

I do not know if the group thinks that "reasonable" is "objective" or  
"subjective," but I'd argue that it adds grayness.  If it doesn't,  
then is this better than the version John quoted?
>
> A "first party" is any party, in a specific network interaction,  
> that can [reasonably] infer with high probability that the user  
> knowingly and intentionally communicated with it. Otherwise, a party  
> is a third party.
>


A related issue is:  "Clear to consumers" or "reasonable efforts to  
disclose. in a manner easily discoverable by users" -- from whose  
PoV?  It doesn't make sense to look at "clear to consumers" or "easily  
discoverable by Users" from the website's perspective.


It may be that the real issue with the proposed definition is not  
subjectivity but meaning.  E.g., I'm concerned that "interacts" in  
this sentence,

>> A First Party also includes the owner of a widget, search box or  
>> similar service with which a consumer interacts

loses the notion of "meaningful interaction" that we discussed in the  
context of mouse-overs, invisible elements, etc., i.e., the user isn't  
even aware of the interaction.


Thanks,
Lee


On Feb 21, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote:

> It seems like your proposed definition shares the property of the  
> end user's knowledge being relevant:
>
>> (2) an entity where the relationship to the First Party is clear to  
>> consumers through co-branding or similar means
>
>
> Where the alternative uses a test of inferring probability, this  
> definition refers to "clarity to consumers" and provides an example  
> (co-branding). Maybe this is a direction towards consensus or  
> compromise; we all recognize user expectations as important and want  
> a definition that gives some examples as guidance.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:
>
>> Because that depends on detecting the state of mind of both of the  
>> site and the user …  Trying to get to a more objective measurement…
>>
>> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:23 PM
>> To: Amy Colando (LCA)
>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: ACTION 124
>>
>> Amy,
>>
>> Why is this better than:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Per the Action 124, here’s a proposed First Party definition that I  
>> have worked on with Shane and Ted:
>>
>> A First Party is the entity that owns the Web site or has Control  
>> over the Web site the consumer visits. A First Party also includes  
>> the owner of a widget, search box or similar service with which a  
>> consumer interacts, even if such First Party does not own or have  
>> Control over the Web site where the widget or services are  
>> displayed to the consumer.
>>
>> A First Party includes Affiliates of that First Party, but only to  
>> the extent that the Affiliate  is (1) an entity that Controls, is  
>> Controlled by, or us under common Control with, the First Party; or  
>> (2) an entity where the relationship to the First Party is clear to  
>> consumers through co-branding or similar means.
>>
>> A First Party must make reasonable efforts to disclose, in a manner  
>> easily discoverable by Users, its ownership or Control of a site or  
>> service, such as through branding on the site or service,  
>> disclosures in the privacy policy or terms of use linked to that  
>> site or service, or ….
>>
>> Control of an entity means that one entity (1) is under significant  
>> common ownership or operational control of the other entity, or (2)  
>> has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the  
>> management or policies of the other entity.  In addition, for an  
>> entity to be under the Control of another entity and be treated as  
>> a First Party under this standard, the entity must also adhere to  
>> DNT standard in this specification.
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 23:28:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:25 UTC