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

Re: Multiple First Parties

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:52:03 -0400
Cc: "<rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <D382FE49-395D-4B00-A30C-14D2EEC14A75@democraticmedia.org>
To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>
I also agree that the meaningful interaction standard should apply.  Just because a site may have a syndicated presence on a first part page shouldn't give it a free pass.  Sites could engage in co-branding to wipe out DNT safeguards.



On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Mike Zaneis wrote:

> Rob,
> 
> I don't think the meaningful interaction standard covers what is being presented here. Meaningful interaction contemplates a user action after they visit the site. What the examples Rob Sherman provides show is a clear understanding by the user that there are multiple first parties upon landing on a particular page (am I getting that right Rob Sherman?). 
> 
> I think this is a vitally important distinction for us to make since the Internet is evolving to provide more examples of this dual content/owner page. It just needs to be clear to the user that there are multiple first parties and providing some factors of indicia in the standard would be helpful. 
> 
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
> 
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:42 AM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> In these instances, a party will be deemed a first party on a particular website if it concludes that a user would reasonably expect to communicate with it using the website.
>> 
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>> This would imply a change of the first party definition, which is covered elsewhere in the document. Isn't your scenarion already covered with the priniple of meaningful interaction?
>> 
>> tnks::Rob
>> 
>> Rob Sherman schreef op 2012-09-19 22:34:
>>> *
>>>   *
>>> The editors' draft of the compliance spec raises a question about how
>>> to define the circumstances in which more than one entity operates as
>>> a first party on a particular website. As drafted, the first option
>>> leaves more questions than answers because it says that this may
>>> happen in some circumstances but does not provide any concrete
>>> guidance on how a party can tell when it is a first party.
>>> 
>>> I've proposed text below that I hope leaves intact the basic intent
>>> behind the existing text — including two examples that are already
>>> there as options — but that elaborates a bit on the examples and
>>> provides some non-normative guidance about factors that an entity
>>> might consider in making a judgment whether it qualifies as a first
>>> party. The thinking is that, although we can't — and should not try
>>> to — anticipate the specifics every situation in which two entities
>>> collaborate, it would be helpful to provide some guidance in the text
>>> to people who are not in the Working Group and who may not have the
>>> context for situations that this section envisions.
>>> 
>>> Feedback on this text would, of course, be appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>> # # #
>>> 
>>> 3.5.1.2.2 MULTIPLE FIRST PARTIES
>>> 
>>> _<NORMATIVE>_
>>> 
>>> For many websites, there will be only one party that the average user
>>> would expect to communicate with: the provider of the website the user
>>> has visited. But, for other websites, users may expect to communicate
>>> with more than one party. In these instances, a party will be deemed a
>>> first party on a particular website if it concludes that a user would
>>> reasonably expect to communicate with it using the website.
>>> 
>>> _<NON-NORMATIVE>_
>>> 
>>> URIs, branding, the presence of privacy policies or other disclosures
>>> that specifically identify a party, and the extent to which a party
>>> provides meaningful content or functionality on the website, may
>>> contribute to, but are not necessarily determinative of, user
>>> perceptions about whether a website is provided by more than one
>>> party.
>>> 
>>> _Example: _Example Sports, a well-known sports league, collaborates
>>> with Example Streaming, a well-known streaming video website, to
>>> provide content on a sports-themed video streaming website. The
>>> website is prominently advertised and branded as being provided by
>>> both Example Sports and ExampleStreaming. An ordinary user who visits
>>> the website may recognize that it isoperated by both Example Sports
>>> and Example Streaming. Both Example Sports and Example Streaming are
>>> first parties.
>>> 
>>> _Example:_ Example Sports has a dedicated page on a Example Social, a
>>> social networking website. The page is branded with both Example
>>> Sports’ name and logo and Example Social’s name and logo. Both
>>> Example Sports’ name and Example Social’s names appear in the URI
>>> for the page. When a user visits this dedicated page, both Example
>>> Sports and Example Social are first parties.
>>> 
>>> Rob Sherman
>>> 
>>> FACEBOOK | MANAGER, PRIVACY AND PUBLIC POLICY
>>> 
>>> 1155 F Street, NW Suite 475 | Washington, DC 20004
>>> 
>>> office 202.370.5147 | mobile 202.257.3901
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 13:52:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC