- From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:37:55 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
I think there's a language ambiguity here. Some consider "cross-site tracking" to be about correlating user actions on unrelated websites. Others consider "cross-site tracking" to be about information practices by third-party websites. In light of the ambiguity, I'd support dropping the term from the Preference Expression document and replacing it with something more neutral. Moreover, at a higher level, I don't think compliance policy questions belong in that document. Preference Expression should be a technical vehicle for whatever Compliance and Scope specifies - no more and no less. I would support clarifying that principle in the documents and trimming the lengthy policy-based introduction from the Preference Expression document. I am very sensitive to Roy's and Kevin's concern that the group not move away from its consensus that this standard will impose (almost) no limits on first-party conduct. I believe the current proposals for Compliance and Scope accurately reflect that consensus. To the extent they don't, debate should be held in the context of that document, not surrounding an ambiguous turn of phrase elsewhere. Jonathan On Jan 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > Kevin, > > can you explain cross-site tracking by first parties to me? I just point out > the logic break here. Either we talk about first vs third parties or we solely > scope the entire exercise and scope to "cross-site tracking". > > Rigo > > On Wednesday 11 January 2012 11:13:08 Kevin Smith wrote: >> Actually, at least in the early meetings, I believe we had near consensus >> that the objective of this working group would be focused around cross-site >> tracking (despite a somewhat confusing name of DNT). Most of the current >> issues and discussions are reflective of this direction - such as defining >> affiliates, 1st vs 3rd parties, and exceptions to when cross-site tracking >> are permissible such as rate frequency capping. >> >> If that is still true, I think it's imperative to have it spelled out as Roy >> has done in the doc to avoid as much confusion as possible. >
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:40:57 UTC