RE: technical, business, legal definitions

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 Thursday, 26 January 2012 09:29:35 UTC