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

Re: FW: ACTION-267 - Propose first/third party definitions from existing DAA documents

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:01:19 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Message-ID: <1553750.RiZWdS5Dy1@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Mike, 

I like that, but fear we open a can of worms that we thought was 
closed. After talks to David W. in Amsterdam, I'm confirmed in my 
personal opinion about 1st and 3rd parties (it's sufficient to look 
at the monster-definitions to see that it's just an ugly 
compromise). For the moment, I haven't seen somebody linking this 
discussion to a concrete issue. If we want to open the question 
again, this has to be requested to the chairs. 

Note that the 'no-distinction' makes no difference to both regimes. 
US default unset is as unaffected by the distinction as is EU treat 
like DNT:1 as you are required to do so by law. 

Nevertheless, the distinction has some merit. Counter arguments are: 

 * A first party is not doing cross-site monitoring, so the risk for 
privacy is lower
 * Trying to address all will also affect smaller sites. Most third 
parties are real professional services and can afford the DNT 
complexity.
 * First party tracking is addressed by other means (the CNIL 
inquiry on Google's change of privacy policy being one example for 
this)
 * First parties MAY respect DNT and declare their compliance. They 
are not forced to, but they aren't hindered either. (Although I 
think we do not have a status value for that yet other than the 
disputed "N")

There are counter-counter arguments. 

In short, I wonder how much Shane and Heather would howl if we re-
open that question. They may oppose it and the chairs too (because 
of timing)

Rigo
 
On Thursday 11 October 2012 16:07:26 Mike O'Neill wrote:
> So we now have 1) a EU based "compliance regime" that's says DNT:1
> should be assumed by default and 1st party should react as if
> they were 3rd p, 2) a W3C "consensus" where DNT unset is the
> default and 1st parties have an easier ride than 3rd parties and
> 3) a DAA/IAB US/and others lobby who hold that 2) is unfair and
> not a level playing field.
> 
>  
> 
> So why not just support 1. The only difference with your position
> is the DNT default case, which is hard to explain to outsiders
> and cannot be avoided in Europe anyway.
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 16:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC