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

RE: Multiple First Parties

From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:34:56 -0700
To: "'Vinay Goel'" <vigoel@adobe.com>, "'Jeffrey Chester'" <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "'Rob Sherman'" <robsherman@fb.com>
Cc: "'Chris Pedigo'" <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>, "'Justin Brookman'" <justin@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <028301cd9817$09708050$1c5180f0$@otalliance.org>
A good example , IE identifies it as a Yahoo property (via domain
highlighting), but to the user (or at least to me),  it appears it is ATT. 

 

Perhaps it might be important to put in context of how the consumer is
directed to the site.  It is part of the ATT newsletter or how do they land
there?  If I am directed to the site only via ATT, one might argue they are
the first party and Yahoo is not.   

 

 

 

From: Vinay Goel [mailto:vigoel@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:26 AM
To: Jeffrey Chester; Rob Sherman
Cc: Chris Pedigo; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Here's one example: http://att.yahoo.com

 

-Vinay

 

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:33 AM
To: Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>
Cc: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>, Justin Brookman
<justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:34 AM

 

Rob:  Thanks for all this.  Can you give us a real world example of a co-run
site?   What are the models we can examine to help us better understand the
implications for users? 

 

Regards,

 

Jeff

 

 

Jeffrey Chester

Center for Digital Democracy

1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550

Washington, DC 20009

www.democraticmedia.org

www.digitalads.org

202-986-2220

 

On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:01 AM, Rob Sherman wrote:





Thanks very much for all of this feedback.  As I understand it, the group
generally agrees that the party responsible for a website that a user
visits is a first party on that website.  Text in the existing draft
acknowledges that, in some circumstances, there may be more than one party
responsible.  The point of my proposal is to provide context around that
concept so that parties have some guidance in the spec about how to
determine whether they fall into this category.  Currently, we simply say
that it may sometimes happen and leave it at that.  The Example Sports on
Example Social example - which comes from Jonathan and Tom's text - is an
attempt to illustrate the point, and what I've tried to do is to elaborate
a bit on what it is about Example Sports and Example Social that make them
both first parties in that instance.

I agree with Mike that the meaningful interaction standard doesn't apply
here.  To be clear, we're talking about two distinct situations:  (1) a
basic third party, such as a "share" button, which is a third party but
becomes a first party when the user interacts with it; and (2) a single
website that is operated by two first parties operating together.  In that
second scenario, just as we agree that a user intends to interact with the
entity responsible for a website when he/she browses to that website, it
seems reasonable to draw the same conclusion when there are two entities
responsible.  This should not implicate Jeff's concern about giving
parties a "free pass" on DNT because, although I think branding is an
important way to ensure that consumers understand who is responsible for a
website, nobody is suggesting that putting a logo on a website, without
more, gives a party license to ignore DNT.

My goal here is simply to describe the concept of multiple first parties,
which has been in the draft for some time and is a concept that I think
most people in the TPWG understand, in a way that helps parties who have
not been a part of our discussions implement the spec in a way that is
consistent with what we envision.


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





On 9/20/12 7:08 AM, "Chris Pedigo" <CPedigo@online-publishers.org> wrote:




Rob, thanks for this clarifying language.  I believe it reflects the

group's previous decisions on first parties and provides some useful

guidance for implementers.

 

Justin, I don't see how this would be an expansion.  Can you clarify?

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Justin Brookman [mailto:justin@cdt.org]

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:01 AM

To: public-tracking@w3.org

Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties

 

The existing language already allows for multiple first parties despite

no meaningful interaction.  Rob (Sherman) is arguing for an expansion.

I have previously argued against multiple first parties, but I do not

believe many agreed with me.  The Example Sports on Example Social is an

interesting example that may be consistent with Jonathan's original

formulation (he and Tom drafted the original language), though I still

think we need more to be clear that mere branding and disclosure are not

sufficient.

 

Justin Brookman

Director, Consumer Privacy

Center for Democracy & Technology

1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006

tel 202.407.8812

fax 202.637.0969

justin@cdt.org

http://www.cdt.org

@CenDemTech

@JustinBrookman

 

On 9/20/2012 9:52 AM, Jeffrey Chester wrote:

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 Friday, 21 September 2012 16:35:25 UTC

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