W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

From: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:04:03 +0100
Message-ID: <52CC87E3.1020705@w3.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
I created a wiki page with text proposals for ISSUE-240:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context

Currently, only Roy's initial text proposal is listed.

Rob, as you suggested a completely different approach (rather user 
expectation than relation to party/branding) in your email from December 
18, could you work on an text proposal to add to the wiki page?

Ninja

Am 18.12.13 19:37, schrieb Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker:
> tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
>
> Raised by: Justin Brookman
> On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
>
> The definition of tracking that was adopted by the group includes a concept of "context" that some members have asked that the text define more clearly.
>
> Roy Fielding was the author of this definition, and included this language on context in the Call for Objections poll:
>
> The above definition also depends on there being a definition of context that bounds a scope of user activity, though it is not dependent on any particular definition of that term. For example, something along the lines of: "For the purpose of this definition, a context is a set of resources that share the same data controller, same privacy policy, and a common branding, such that a user would expect that data collected by one of those resources is available to all other resources within the same context."
>
> Alternatively, the group might decide that the common sense meaning of context is sufficient, as it more closely approximates a user's general intent in turning on the Do Not Track signal.
>
> We will continue discussion of this topic on the January 8th call, but we encourage discussion of these (and other) ideas on the list in the meantime.
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 23:04:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:42 UTC