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

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

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:25:20 -0800
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E368D07C-1E4A-401F-BC13-36F3A41F50BA@consumerwatchdog.org>
To: Alexander Hanff <a.hanff@think-privacy.com>
Hi Alexander,

Can you please point me to the RFC definitions to which you refer?
Thanks,
John
---------
John M. Simpson
Privacy Project Director
Consumer Watchdog
2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
Santa Monica, CA, 90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org

On Feb 27, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Alexander Hanff <a.hanff@think-privacy.com> wrote:

> The issue in question is not whether or not people will be aware that by clicking on a Like button it will post something to their timeline  that is not the purpose of Do Not Track.  The issue in question is whether or not someone accepts or consents to Facebook tracking their online behaviour if they click on a like button and do so across all web sites where those buttons exists  furthermore, just clicking on the button is not an accurate description of how this tracking works.
>  
> My understanding is that if a user is currently logged in to Facebook or has any Facebook cookies on their machine, merely loading a page with the Like button script embedded is enough for Facebook to be able to track that user across sites with the widget.
>  
> This redefinition is not within the scope of TPWG   TPWGs purpose is not to redefine existing RFCs (1st/3rd party definition has existed in RFC for ooo about a decade or more)  TPWGs purpose is to come up with a standard and compliance specification to deal with 3rd party tracking consent mechanisms.
>  
> How any of you can sit there with a straight face and say it is ok to redefine a technical term that has existed for over a decade is beyond me.  This new definition goes against the very premise of DNT which is to send a signal about not being tracked; by making some of the most invasive and widespread tracking technologies immune to the standard simply by redefining 1st party to put them out of scope, is reprehensible.
>  
> Alexander Hanff
>  
> From: Justin Brookman [mailto:justin@cdt.org] 
> Sent: 27 February 2013 17:34
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-10 First party definition, ISSUE-60, ACTION-?
>  
> There is no consensus definition of "first party" --- there are three separate ones in the text.  I believe they all say much the same thing and I was merely trying to merge them. :)
> 
> I believe the group is at consensus that if someone clicks a "Like" button, then it is reasonable to expect that Facebook is going to receive information that falls outside the scope of Do Not Track (namely, that the user 'likes' some particular page or pbject, and now FB can display that in Newsfeed and Timeline consistent with the user's privacy settings).  If anyone in the working group disagrees with that, feel free to speak up.  Alexander, if you want to comb through the mailing list to see our previous exhaustive discussions on this, you may find them informative.  Or you may not, I don't know.
> 
> However, you do, obliquely, get to a relevant point --- that perhaps the definition should include be revised to say "clearly branded" before "embedded widget" in order to make sure that the user knows what she's clicking on.  I believe the group had discussed something similar previously.  I would be fine with a discussion on what constitutes clear branding (I would say things like the Like, Tweet, and +1 buttons qualify) in an appendix.
> 
> 
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> tel 202.407.8812
> justin@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> @JustinBrookman
> @CenDemTech
> On 2/27/2013 11:01 AM, Alexander Hanff wrote:
> Why is the group second guessing what consumers think?  The definition of first party already exists, there is no need to redefine it in a light which makes it easier for exceptions to be made for tracking widgets.
>  
> Many users will not be remotely aware that a Like button is actually hosted by Facebook, they would assume it is hosted on the domain they are visiting.  To assume otherwise is absurd and further weakens the validity of this DNT process.
>  
> Alexander Hanff
>  
> From: Justin Brookman [mailto:justin@cdt.org] 
> Sent: 27 February 2013 16:52
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-10 First party definition, ISSUE-60, ACTION-?
>  
> Peter asked me to try to combine the three definitions of "first party" in the current text in consultation with Heather.  The existing definitions are all very close, and I don't think there are major substantive disagreements here.  Anyway, here is my best effort (Heather provided feedback, but she's not around this morning, so I don't know if she blesses this):
>  
> In a specific network interaction, if a party can reasonably conclude with high probability that the user intends to communicate with it, that party is a <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.  A first party also includes a party that owns and operates an embedded widget, search box, or similar service with which a user intentionally interacts.  If a user merely mouses over, closes, or mutes such content, that is not sufficient interaction to render the party a first party.
>  
> Rob Sherman is separately working on text regarding multiple first parties.
>  
> Chris Pedigo and Vinay Goel are separately working on text regarding data processors that stand in the shoes of their controllers, party-wise.
> -- 
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> tel 202.407.8812
> justin@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> @JustinBrookman
> @CenDemTech
>  
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 19:25:50 UTC

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