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

RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:41:21 -0800
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
CC: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D10109E40@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
I agree with both sides and suggest we set forth the definition of a Service Provider as a separate and distinct, "special" kind of 3rd party that is able to be treated as a 1st party if the appropriate conditions are met (contractual relationship, data segregation, etc.).  This will meet the reality of online business operations today AND provide a construct such that Service Providers are not confused in language directed at actual 3rd parties.  Fair?  

1st Party
3rd Party
Service Provider (3rd Party acting as a 1st Party)
Widget (1st Party on 3rd Party sites)

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:29 PM
To: Jonathan Mayer
Cc: Tom Lowenthal; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties

On Feb 29, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> The provisions on outsourcing are not "overly simplistic" in the slightest.  The group worked through them at Santa Clara, on the list, and on multiple calls.  We've talking through myriad hypotheticals, including service providers like a cloud computing platform.
> Unless you have a new use case, I think this is all long since closed.

Those sections are marked as PENDING REVIEW in the document, and the
particular issue we are talking about now (ISSUE-123) is still OPEN.

Since neither of you are on the hook to implement this, I suggest
you pay attention to my concerns: I object to this wording if it
includes third parties acting as a first party.  A third-party acting
as a first-party may present itself as the first-party because it is
already constrained by the section defining "acting as a first-party".

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 02:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:46 UTC