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: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:40:23 +0000
To: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
CC: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Message-ID: <1A25E5E5-B2AB-4649-89C9-0897A62B8FF2@online-publishers.org>
Rob Sherman, Susan Israel and I developed the following definition of context.  I'm about to board a flight so I will miss today's call. But happy to discuss over email.

"A context is the collection of network resources that are operated or co-operated by a party."

This refers back to the working group's definition of "party":

A party is a natural person, a legal entity, or a set of legal entities that share common owner(s), common controller(s), and a group identity that is easily discoverable by a user. Common branding or providing a list of affiliates that is available via a link from a resource where a party describes DNT practices are examples of ways to provide this discoverability.

Within the context of a given user action, afirst party is a party with which the user intends to interact, via one or more network interactions, as a result of making that action. Merely hovering over, muting, pausing, or closing a given piece of content does not constitute a user's intent to interact with another party.

In some cases, a resource on the Web will be jointly controlled by two or more distinct parties. Each of those parties is considered a first party if a user would reasonably expect to communicate with all of them when accessing that resource. For example, prominent co-branding on the resource might lead a user to expect that multiple parties are responsible for the content or functionality.

For any data collected as a result of one or more network interactions resulting from a user's action, a third party is any party other than that user, a first party for that user action, or a service provider acting on behalf of either that user or that first party.

On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Ninja Marnau" <ninja@w3.org<mailto:ninja@w3.org>> wrote:

Thank you, Mike! I will add it to the wiki and maybe Rob and and you can discuss in the call today whether to merge it.

Ninja

Am 08.01.14 14:34, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
Hi Ninja,

Here is my definition of contexts. It has the same drift as Rob's so I expect we will converge.

Contexts are the user discernable locales within which they can give or withdraw their consent to data controllers for the collection and use of data about their web activity, geo-location or identity.


Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Ninja Marnau [mailto:ninja@w3.org]
Sent: 07 January 2014 23:04
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Rob van Eijk
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context?
[Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

I created a wiki page with text proposals for ISSUE-240:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_conte
xt

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 Wednesday, 22 January 2014 14:40:52 UTC

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