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

RE: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:56:36 -0000
To: "'Aleecia M. McDonald'" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01bd01cdbec5$170b8c80$4522a580$@baycloud.com>
Aleecia,

I think that issue-64 needs to be thought about further. The only way that
1st party declared data can be used in a 3rd party context is if a UUID is
stored (presumably in a cookie). 6.1.2.3 is therefore allowing UUIDs to be
stored or used in order to track users irrespective of the DNT setting,
which I cannot believe there is a consensus for. For starters it would not
be legal in Europe (without some form of consent). 

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] 
Sent: 09 November 2012 20:04
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

Here are places we might have straight-forward decisions. If there are no
responses within a week (that is, by Friday 16 November,) we will adopt the
proposals below. 


For issue-97 (Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind of
tracking is this?)  with action-196, we have text with no counter proposal.
Unless someone volunteers to take an action to write opposing text, we will
close this with the action-196 text.
	PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-196,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0106.html

For issue-60 (Will a recipient know if it itself is a 1st or 3rd party?) we
had a meeting of the minds
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Apr/0129.html) but
did not close the issue. We have support for 3.5.2 Option 2,
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#d
ef-first-third-parties-opt-2, with one of the authors of 3.5.1 Option 1,
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#d
ef-first-third-parties-opt-2 accepting Option 2. There was no sustained
objection against Option 2 at that time. Let us find out if there is
remaining disagreement.
	PROPOSED: We adopt 3.5.2 Option 2,
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#d
ef-first-third-parties-opt-2

For action-306, we have a proposed definition with accompanying
non-normative examples
	PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-306 to define declared data,
to be added to the definitions in the Compliance document,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0296.html 
	PROPOSED: We look for volunteers to take an action to write text
explaining when and how declared data is relevant (See the note in 6.1.2.3,
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#f
irst-party-data) to address issue-64

	Aleecia
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 21:57:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC