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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-184 (Walter van Holst): 3rd party dependencies in 1st party content [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:01:07 +0000
To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCADC090.263CD%chris.mejia@iab.net>
Walter,

With reference to your last point, "to what extent is such consent
informed, genuine and meaningful?", I'd like to point out that this group
has largely rejected the same principals of meaningful and genuine
informed consent when it comes to requirements on agents sending DNT
signals.  For example, sanctions on browsers and UAs that set DNT for the
user by default.

Regards,

Chris

Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB



On 10/24/12 1:49 PM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

>Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker schreef op 2012-10-24
>19:07:
>> tracking-ISSUE-184 (Walter van Holst): 3rd party dependencies in 1st
>> party content [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/184
>>
>> Raised by: Walter van Holst
>> On product: Tracking Definitions and Compliance
>>
>> As anyone that plays around with ad blockers, selective javascript
>> tools, cookie killers and assorted privacy-enhancing browser
>> extensions can attest there is a steady increase of content provided
>> by what under the current text would be a 1st party that cannot be
>> viewed unless content from a 3rd party is also accepted by the UA, be
>> it cookies or javascript.
>>
>> This raises an interesting situation if we have DNT. For example we
>> have a 1st party that is trusted by the user and also claims to
>> comply
>> to DNT and a 3rd party that is neither. Since the 1st party content
>> is
>> technically dependent on 3rd party content, the user has the choice
>> between either granting consent to the 3rd party in order to have the
>> 1st party function properly or not getting the content at all.
>>
>> To what extent is such consent informed, genuine and meaningful?
>
>I would like to add the question the element of free (i.e. freely
>given): to what extent is such consent freely given.
>
>(Recital 17 (2002/58/EC): Consent may be given by any appropriate
>method enabling a freely given, specific and informed  indication of the
>useršs whishes.)
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 20:02:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC