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

RE: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties

From: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:23:43 -0800
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6E120BECD1FFF142BC26B61F4D994CF3064CC1F873@nambx07.corp.adobe.com>
David, 

How are they different?  They seem very similar to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:15 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Jonathan Mayer; Tom Lowenthal; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Third parties should not pretend to be first parties

On Feb 29, 2012, at 18:41 , Shane Wiley wrote:

> 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

It does seem that 'outsourcing some services' (e.g. analytics) and 'outsourcing the hosting' (service provider) are rather different, though they have some similarities.


> 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".
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 18:24:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC