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

Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)

From: Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:22:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4F6295D4.7070006@mozilla.com>
To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
So I guess it's not that black and white.  Let me clarify a bit...

On 3/15/2012 5:02 PM, Sid Stamm wrote:
> I can get behind this. Function without tracking when logged in.  

By this I mean "Function without recording my activity when logged-in."

> I wonder, are there cases where function is exactly tracking (when logged 
> in)?

And by this I mean "Are there cases where the function provided
absolutely requires and is only recording my activity before I interact
with the third party (for sites where I'm logged in)?  I'm talking about
function that immediately benefits the user in the context of the first


> -Sid
> On 3/15/2012 4:46 PM, JC Cannon wrote:
>> Now we just need to get the others to agree. :)
>> JC
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:39 AM
>> To: public-tracking@w3.org
>> Cc: JC Cannon
>> Subject: Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
>> JC, 
>> On Wednesday 14 March 2012 16:28:27 JC Cannon wrote:
>>> Specific scenario: User logs into FB and navigates to CNN.com to read an
>>> article. The user is able to see the FB friends that liked the article.
>>> However, FB should not log the fact that the user has viewed the article or
>>> even gone to CNN unless the user clicks on the FB Like button.
>>> If feel this type of behavior would be expected and I personally like this
>>> type of feature.
>> This was the point I was trying to make in my earlier email (and use case). 
>> How come we agree on things? :)
>> Rigo
Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 01:22:58 UTC

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