Re: Re ISSUE-26: When a 3rd party becomes a 1st party

Good idea.  I think we should compile the data on this topic.   So I would urge you and our colleagues as well to distribute any evidence that users have sufficient prior information to provide informed consent when interacting with third party widgets.  I have just asked one of the leading independent academic researchers on this topic to help.

Thanks,

Jeff




Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Dec 15, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Jeffrey,
>  
> Do you have data to back-up the “user expectations” claims you’ve presented?  I believe when users click on the FB “Like” button they every expectation this is going to set the “Like” for that particular item on their Facebook page.  Do you have information suggesting users that click on the FB Like button do not have this expectation?
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:03 AM
> To: Bryan Sullivan
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Re ISSUE-26: When a 3rd party becomes a 1st party
>  
>  
> I think granting First party status to a [Third Party] widget embedded on a site needs to be viewed in terms of user expectations.  They are likely not to understand that that widget or some other syndicated application has its own data collection practices, different privacy policies, etc.  For a user to have meaningful DNT, such widgets should be regarded as Third Party, and hence the DNT signal should be in effect.  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
> 
> 
> In http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#third-party-compliance:
> 
> The statement "In addition, a domain that hosts a third-party visible
> widget or window that is clearly identified and branded as being
> controlled and operated by a party separate and distinct from the
> first party becomes a first party itself when a user engages in
> "meaningful interaction" with the window or widget." is unclear.
> 
> I believe this is intending to say: "In addition, a third-party domain
> providing content presented in a visible widget or window, clearly
> identified and branded as being controlled and operated by a party
> separate and distinct from the first party, becomes a first party
> itself when a user engages in "meaningful interaction" with the window
> or widget."
> 
> With this meaning, the intent of what I was expressing on the call can
> be better understood. DNT should not prevent sites from providing
> personalized service, if the site is acting as a 1st party in any
> context (as the site directly visited by the user, or a 3rd party site
> with content hosted on the visited site).
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
> 
> 
>