- From: CVS User jbrookma <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:42:55 +0000
- To: public-tracking-commit@w3.org
Update of /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts
In directory gil:/tmp/cvs-serv6378
Modified Files:
CambridgeBareBones.html
Log Message:
merged Nick Doty third way draft on permitted uses
--- /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/CambridgeBareBones.html 2013/02/04 23:35:10 1.2
+++ /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/CambridgeBareBones.html 2013/02/06 03:42:55 1.3
@@ -985,13 +985,6 @@
<section id="third-party-compliance">
<h3>Third Party Compliance</h3>
-
- <p class="note">
- This section addresses the crux of what DNT is intended to accomplish,
- and as such, all of this section remains hotly debated. The specific
- language is likely to change.
- See also <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0141.html">alternative text proposed by Nick Doty</a>.
- </p>
<p>
If a third party receives a communication to which a DNT:1 header is
attached:
@@ -1172,7 +1165,7 @@
<h4>Global Requirements for Permitted Uses</h4>
<p>
- In order to use the Permitted Uses outlined below, a party MUST comply
+ In order to use the permitted uses outlined below, a party MUST comply
with these four requirements.
</p>
@@ -1180,7 +1173,7 @@
<h5>No Secondary Uses</h5>
<p>
- Third Parties MUST NOT use data retained for permitted uses for
+ Third Parties MUST NOT use data retained for a permitted use for
non-permitted uses.
</p>
</section>
@@ -1198,7 +1191,15 @@
data retention period for each permitted use. Once a retention
period for a given use has expired, the data MUST NOT be used for
that permitted use; when there are no remaining permitted uses for
- some data, that data MUST either be deleted or rendered unlinkable.
+ some data, that data MUST either be deleted or rendered unlinkable.</p>
+
+ <p class=option>
+ Additional proposed language:<br><br>
+ Where feasible, a third party SHOULD NOT collect linkable data when that
+ data is not reasonably necessary for one of the permitted uses. In
+ particular, data not necessary for a communication (for example, cookie
+ data, URI parameters, unique identifiers inserted by a network intermediary)
+ MUST NOT be retained unless reasonably necessary for a particular permitted use.
</p>
</section>
@@ -1229,7 +1230,7 @@
<p>
Outside of Security and Frequency Capping, data retained for
Permitted Uses MUST NOT be used to alter a specific user's online
- experience based on multi-site activity.
+ experience [based on multi-site activity].
</p>
</section>
@@ -1254,6 +1255,29 @@
unique device identifier HTTP header).
</p>
+ <p class=option>
+ Flexibility is provided to implementers on how they accomplish permitted
+ uses and minimize data retention and use. Implementers are advised to
+ avoid data collection for DNT:1 users where feasible to enable external
+ confidence.<br><br>
+
+ Placing third-party cookies with unique identifiers (and other techniques
+ for linking data to a user, user agent or device) are permitted where
+ reasonably necessary for a permitted use. Requirements on minimization
+ and secondary use, however, provide limitations on when any collection
+ technique is compatible with a Do Not Track preference and what the
+ implications of that collection are.<br><br>
+
+ To give flexibility to implementers in accomplishing the requirements of
+ this specification and the listed permitted uses, no particular data
+ collection techniques are prescribed or prohibited.<br><br>
+
+ Implementers are advised that collection of user data under a Do Not Track
+ preference (including using unique tracking cookies or browser fingerprinting)
+ may reduce external auditability, monitoring and user confidence and that
+ retention of such data may imply liability in certain jurisdictions in cases
+ of secondary use; for more information, see the Global Considerations.</p>
+
<p class="note">
The EFF/Mozilla/Stanford proposal is heavily dependent upon a
requirement that permitted use data is not correlated to a unique
@@ -1302,7 +1326,7 @@
collection).
</p>
<p class="option">
- Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained
+ Information may be collected, retained
and used for the display of contextual content or advertisements,
including content or advertisements based on the first-party
domain that the user visited.
@@ -1342,7 +1366,7 @@
<p class="option">
- Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained
+ Information may be collected, retained
and used for the display of content or advertisements based in
part on data that the third party previously collected from the
user when acting as a first party.
@@ -1399,9 +1423,9 @@
<h5>Frequency Capping</h5>
<p>
- Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained
+ Information may be collected, retained
and used for limiting the number of times that a user sees a
- particular advertisement, often called "frequency capping".
+ particular advertisement, often called "frequency capping."
</p>
<p class="option">
In Seattle, we discussed specifically limiting how data was
@@ -1438,22 +1462,15 @@
<!--<p class="note">for financial logging/ auditing, look to 3rd parties as 3rd parties</p> -->
<p>
- Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained
- and used for financial fulfillment purposes such as billing and
- audit compliance. This includes counting and verifying:
- </p>
- <ul>
- <li>ad impressions to unique visitors</li>
-
- <li>clicks by unique visitors</li>
-
- <li>subsequent action or conversion by unique visitors</li>
-
- <li>quality measures such as ad position on sites and the sites
- on which the ads were served</li>
- </ul>
+ Information may be collected, retained
+ and used for billing and auditing of
+ concurrent transactions. This may include counting ad
+ impressions to unique visitors, verifying positioning and
+ quality of ad impressions and auditing compliance with this and
+ other standards.
+ </p>
<p class="note">
- One potential compromise on the unique identifier issue for
+ One potential additional compromise on the unique identifier issue for
logging would be grandfather in existing contracts that require
unique, cookie-based counting. New contracts would not be able to
require that ad networks use cookies (or other unique
@@ -1473,18 +1490,18 @@
<section id="security">
<h5>Security and Fraud Prevention</h5>
- <p>To the extent reasonably necessary for detecting security risks and
- fraudulent or malicious activity, parties may collect, retain, and use data
- regardless of a DNT signal. This includes data reasonably necessary for
+ <p>Information may be collected, retained
+ and used to the extent reasonably necessary for detecting security risks and
+ fraudulent or malicious activity. This includes data reasonably necessary for
enabling authentication/verification, detecting hostile and invalid
transactions and attacks, providing fraud prevention, and maintaining system
integrity. In this example specifically, this information may be used to alter
the user's experience in order to reasonably keep a service secure or prevent
fraud. Graduated response is preferred when feasible.</p>
- <p=note>There is an open action to define "graduated response," and an open
- question of whether "graduated response" should be in the normative text, or
- addressed through non-normative examples</p>
+ <p=note>There has been an unresolved discussion on whether "graduated response"
+ should be in the normative text, defined, addressed through non-normative examples,
+ or not included at all.</p>
<!--- <section class="informative" id="security-example">
<h6>Examples</h6>
@@ -1500,7 +1517,7 @@
<h5>Debugging</h5>
<p>
- Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained
+ Information may be collected, retained
and used for identifying and repairing errors that impair
existing intended functionality.
</p>
@@ -1552,9 +1569,9 @@
despite a DNT:1 signal.
</p> --->
<p>
- Regardless of DNT signal, information may be collected, retained, shared,
- and used for complying with local laws and public purposes, such
- as copyright protection and delivery of emergency services.
+ Adherence to laws, legal and judicial process, and regulations take
+ precedence over this standard when applicable, but contractual
+ obligations do not.
</p>
<p class=note>There had previously been an open debate about whether Aggregate Reporting
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 03:42:56 UTC