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

Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:42:39 -0700
Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F2AE494A-64BC-4119-A07E-DB7AC03BEFE0@stanford.edu>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
For purposes of this issue, let's assume the user has not provided out-of-band consent.

While I seriously doubt that we would allow a first party to achieve out-of-band consent by burying it in signup terms or a privacy policy (ISSUE-69), even if we did, some responsible third parties would not take advantage of the loophole.

On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Jonathan,
>  
> If “logged-in” equates to “out of band” consent from a user, then I believe this is moot discussion and would equate more likely to #3 – depends on the terms of registration with that party.  I would suggest we treat “logged-in” on the merits of registration with each party and therefore the W3C makes no statement with regard to DNT and a logged-in state.
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:07 PM
> To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG
> Subject: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
>  
> I see three possible policy options here.
>  
> 1) No logged-in exception: login state does not affect DNT obligations.
>  
> 2) A logged-in exception: if the user is logged into a website, it is treated as a first party.
>  
> 3) In between: if the user is logged into a website under certain conditions (e.g. a recent login, or a login in the same window), it is treated as a first party.
>  
> The ISSUE is PENDING REVIEW, with two text proposals for #1.  (One proposal would be explicit about it, the other would be implicit.)
>  
> #1 seems to me the right outcome.  A first party is under greater market pressure to get privacy and security right - a privacy plus relative to pure third parties.  On the other hand, a first party can link browsing activity to account information - a privacy minus.  Given the risks at issue, it seems to me users should still be provided control.
>  
> I would note that #1 does *not* prevent social widgets and single sign-on from functioning.  Rather, they will initially appear unpersonalized.  After user interaction they can function as normal in a specific scenario, and after user consent they can always function as normal.  Arvind Narayanan and I mocked up an example of Facebook's like button under DNT at: http://donottrack.us/cookbook
>  
> I am concerned that #2 and #3 would privilege specific advertising business models.  Those advertising companies that also operate a large first-party website would be greatly advantaged relative to pure third-party advertising companies.
>  
> Finally, I think #2 and #3 impose an unrealistic burden on users by compelling them to learn about the logged-in exception and then choose between the convenience (and in some cases security) of a saved login and carefully monitoring their login status to exercise choice.
>  
> For those participants who persist in viewing DNT as a limit on content personalization, I think all of the same arguments apply (save the first paragraph about collection).
>  
> In group discussions I *think* there has been a consensus or near-consensus for #1.  If anyone disagrees, I'd very much like to hear about it.  Otherwise, this issue seems ripe for closing in next week's call.
>  
> Best,
> Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 02:43:10 UTC

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