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

Re: ISSUE-10 First party definition, ISSUE-60, ACTION-?

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:23:21 +0100
Message-ID: <512E4109.5070807@xs4all.nl>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 2/27/13 5:52 PM, Heather West wrote:
> An alternative version of the definition that Justin circulated, with a
> few edits but same general approach:
> 
> In a specific network interaction, a party with which the user interacts
> is the <dfn>First Party</dfn>. In most cases on a traditional web
> browser, the first party will be the party that owns and operates the
> domain visible in the address bar. The party that owns and operates or
> has control over an (branded/labelled?) embedded widget, search box, or
> similar service with which a user intentionally interacts is also
> considered a First Party.  If a user merely mouses over, closes, or
> mutes such content, that is not sufficient interaction to render the
> party a first party. Non-First Party entities on the site are considered
> Third Parties.

In a sensible world where 1st parties would be within the scope of the
proposed standard I would be tempted to agree, despite it not being
entirely compatible with controller/processor notions in EU data
protection legislation.

I am terribly sorry for bringing this up again, but as long as we this
group does carry on insisting that:

- 1st parties are outside the scope of the standard
- there is such a thing as a 3rd party which is not same-party to a 1st
party

We're unlikely to make progress while time and credibility of this
process are running out fast.

In case we could agree that 1st parties are within scope my suggestion
would be to:

- replace the part that starts with "The party that owns and
operates..."  etc. with:

"The party that owns and operates or has control over a distinctly
branded or labeled (which shall also be recognisable for visually
impaired users) web page elements with which a user intentionally
interacts with will be considered a First Party in its own right.

Any network interactions that are not the result of intentional user
interactions with distinctly branded or labeled content elements will be
considered as network interactions with a Same Party of the First Party
who controls the inclusion of such content elements in the web page.

The explicit exclusion of mouse-overs etc. from intentional user
interactions is useful from my perspective.

Regards,

 Walter
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 17:23:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:42 UTC