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

RE: technical, business, legal definitions

From: <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:37:26 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <39899.158.169.9.14.1327574246.squirrel@webmail.solcon.nl>
To: "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "Haakon Bratsberg" <haakon.bratsberg@opera.com>, "Karl Dubost" <karld@opera.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
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 Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:38:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:23 UTC