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

Usecases / questions / benchmarks to "validate" the same context definitions

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:02:14 +0100
Message-ID: <52CFD336.3040904@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Team and dear proposers of definitions for "same context"...


While contributing to the evaluation of the CfO on "network 
interaction", I realised that it helps to agree on use and test cases 
for the definitions and to understand how these cases are resolved in 
different ways by the different definitions.

Our goal for the "same context" definition should be to build a 
definition of "tracking" that reflects user expectation. In order to 
reach this goal, I would like to gather "tests" and understand how each 
of the author would address these scenarios/benchmarks/test cases 
assuming that DNT;1 has been received.

Below, I would like to kick off this discussion by three initial test 
cases /scenarios. I would be interested in how the three definitions 
would currently resolve these tests...


Regards,
matthias

PS: Note that the 3 tests I propose are just a proposal and starting 
point. Feel free to add your own use cases to further flesh out the 
differences between the definitions.

==================================================================================================
---------- Initial list of test scenarios to differentiate the behavior 
of proposed"same context" definitions under DNT;1 ---
==================================================================================================

Scenario 1: Cross-site collection
A site has a main sites and many widgets on other sites. It has set a 
cookie and can observe a user visiting the main site and/or any of the 
widgets placed on other sites.
Site and other sites with widgets do not share branding/privacy polic/...

Questions to discuss:
- Is the main site and the widget "same context" or not in a scenario 
where no info is recorded where the widget has been placed (i.e., the 
site records that 8723872377382 has hit the main site XX times and the 
widgets YY times)
- Is the main site and the widget "same context" or not in a scenario 
where the site records the placement of the widget (e.g., user 928398239 
has visited main site XX times, the widget on site ZZ has been visited 
WW times, ...)

Scenario 2: Cross-time collection
- A user 823892393 (some random ID) is visiting the same site regularily.
- The site collects a search history attached to this ID

Question:
- Are the different visits considered same tracking or not

Scenario 3: Discovery of the boundary of a context

- A user browses a site

Question:
- Is there a way that the user can find out the boundary of the "same 
context" that is spanned by your definition

Scenario 4: Service providers

- A user browses a site that contains service providers that DO NOT 
re-use the data elsewhere
- The service provider adheres to the same privacy policy and does not 
have its own branding

Question:
- Is the site and the service provider servicing the same site "same 
context"?
Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 11:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 January 2014 11:02:41 UTC