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

Re: Issue for discussion on Wed

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:18:54 +0100
Cc: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, public-tracking@w3.org
Message-id: <DEE1BB3A-F709-4676-B332-F6B8625003A5@apple.com>
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>

On Jul 9, 2013, at 16:02 , Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:

> Hi Walter - I offered two links to articles that might be helpful.
> 
> http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20123464-12/amazons-silk-browser-now-e
> ff-approved-really/

OK, this one is more interesting.  To what extent is the Silk browser effectively a 'distributed user agent'?  I agree with others that trying to restrict what my local software can remember locally on my behalf is not needed (it's part of me, the presumably second party), but I agree with you that the browser *vendor* or other 'parties' are third parties by definition.


> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/help_my_belkin_router/

A router is not a user-agent.

> 
> I'm making a point that most UA's have access to URL history and other
> information that could easily be used for tracking as defined by the WG.

Only if another party has access to that data, I think.

> It would seem inconsistent to have DNT block other forms of tracking if
> we're not also going to have DNT block UA tracking.


I don't think one can 'track' oneself (it's kind of like a snake eating itself).  But yes, we need to be clear that all other parties (including the user-agent vendor) are third parties and subject to these controls.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 15:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 July 2013 15:19:23 UTC