W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > December 2013

RE: Chairs' decisions on Calls for Objection on tracking/party definitions (ISSUE-5, ISSUE-10)

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:22:50 -0000
To: "'Justin Brookman'" <jbrookman@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02d901cefc0d$660a79a0$321f6ce0$@baycloud.com>
Justin,

 

Here are my immediate thoughts on the basis of the chairs’ decision.

 

It is not correct that “the Working Group’s understanding [is] that Do Not
Track is not fundamentally intended to limit data collection and use by
first parties”. The long standing intention is that DNT should limit the use
of collected data by first parties by at least not permitting sharing of it
with other parties. 

 

My objection was to the ambiguity of Option A which can be read as allowing
activity data being collected and retained by any party (i.e. third-parties
or first-parties), if it was derived solely from within that context. This
immediately requires the definition of not only “contexts” but also the
definition of data that has been tainted through its association with other
contexts, and this could further delay the process of getting to LC.

 

This problem arises from trying to smuggle a particular compliance
interpretation into the definition of tracking. A better way might be to
have non-normative text saying that the DNT header (with the UGE API) has
been designed to be primarily a cross-domain signalling mechanism which can
be overridden by assumed consent in specific situations as described in the
relevant compliance document, or by actual consent signalled by other
mechanisms. 

 

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org] 
Sent: 18 December 2013 03:43
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Chairs' decisions on Calls for Objection on tracking/party
definitions (ISSUE-5, ISSUE-10)

 

Hello all, we announced the results of the Calls for Objection on tracking
and party definitions on last week's call --- the chairs decided that Option
A on both had the least strong objections, and would be added as definitions
to both the TPE and TCS.  I'm attaching brief explanatory memoranda on both
ISSUES that address the group members' substantive objections in some more
detail.  I don't expect to discuss the merits of these issues on the call
tomorrow, though if there are questions about what the decisions mean for
the work going forward, feel free to bring them up!  Thanks again to all for
their contributions and hard work on finalizing the TPE document for last
call; I do believe the end is in sight.

 

 
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 16:23:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 December 2013 16:23:30 UTC