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

Re: ACTION-169 ISSUE-61 same-party relations

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 17:48:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA54BE4.60608@blaeu.com>
To: public-tracking@w3.org

Chris,
The text opens up compliance in a later debate on responsibilities, for 
controller-processor can be seen as a 'same party'.
Rob

On 4-5-2012 13:26, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Chris,
>
> yes, but it goes a bit further. My text puts a hint for later debates on
> responsibility. If a first party declares things as "same party", they take
> responsibility for those. If the other parties declared as "same" misbehave
> the semantics are such that this misbehavior is assigned also to the first
> party who had declared "same party" for the misbehaving site.
> This is to give people an incentive not to declare arbitrary third parties
> with lose relations as "same party" because this creates a liability risk.
> With my text, a site will only chose those as "same party" that they are in
> the same legal bucket and which they trust.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Rigo
>
> On Friday 04 May 2012 11:15:32 Chris Pedigo wrote:
>> Rigo, thanks for taking this on. Is my understanding correct that this
>> language simply requires that a site may only claim affiliate sites as
>> long as those sites also honor DNT?
>
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 15:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC