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

Re: Proposed text on ACTION-196: Draft text on whether url shorteners are first or third parties?

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:23:16 -0500
Message-ID: <509D9E74.2090907@networkadvertising.org>
To: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi,

I'm responding to this thread after Aleecia's call to respond or have 
the issue closed.

The numbering has changed, so this now relates to section 3.5.1.2.1 in 
the TCS.

The proposed language is trying to create a standard based on users' 
knowledge and intent, and then provide functional definitions. That in 
itself is a problematic approach, as I see it. But that aside, the 
examples need to be better, and they need to include rationales for 
their conclusions. See questions inline. These concerns could be applied 
to all of the examples in that section, not just these.

On 6/6/12 12:02 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
> Additional entries under 3.3.1.2.1.1 Common Examples and Use Cases
>
> 5. A user visits Example Social and sees the language: "Check out this
> Example News article on cooking: sho.rt/1234".  The user clicks the link
> which directs the user to a page operated by the company Example Sho.rt
> which then redirects the user to a page operated by Example News.
> Example Social and Example News and first parties, and Example Sho.rt is
> a third party.
Why is Sho.rt a third party? The user sees the domain in the link and 
intentionally clicks on it. Will it matter whether or how the shortened 
link is exposed to the user?

What's the relevance of the fact that the user was first directed to a 
page on Sho.rt? Will it matter whether that page has content or it 
immediately redirects?

Is Example News a first party because that's where the user landed or 
because the link was advertised as an Example new article, so therefore 
that's where the user intended to go?
> 6. A user visits Example Social and sees a hyperlink reading: "Check out
> this Example News article on cooking."  A user clicks the link which
> points to framing.com/news1234.  This page loads nothing but a frame
> which contains the cooking article from Example News, but all links are
> rewritten to pass through framing.com which is operated by Example
> Framing.  Example Social and Example News are first parties and Example
> Framing is a third party.
Same questions as above. Additionally, at what point does/can Framing 
become a first party? The user sees the frame, right? So if the user 
clicks a link in the framed page, now knowing that it's a framed page, 
can we assume Framing becomes first party?
>
> I would also propose to add the following sentence (somewhere) to the
> explanatory text which would precede the use cases:
>
> In some cases, web requests are redirected through intermediary domains,
> such as url shorteners or framing pages, before eventually delivering
> the content that the user was attempting to access.  The operators of
> these intermediary domains are third parties, unless they are a common
> party to the operator of either the referring page or the eventual
> landing page.
Is that the only way they become first parties? Why would we not apply 
the same general standards of knowledge and intent as we do elsewhere?

-David
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 00:23:45 UTC

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