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

I think we are not in agreement that when you interact with the button or widget it's first party.  We should quickly compile the research and other market data on this and address it further.  As Article 29's report out today suggests, users require greater information and there are additional reasonable mechanisms that can be added on behalf of users (which refers to Justin's question).


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 11:33 AM, Dave Singer wrote:

> 
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 8:10 , 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?
> 
> I think we're all in agreement that if they *interact* with content, the content they interact with is first party.
> 
> However, when I visit New York Times, though I don't mind NYT knowing I visited, knowing who I am, and indeed if they need to, remembering I visited, the same does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, or any other site that the NYT chose to send my way, and I didn't choose.
> 
> So, they remain 3rd party until the user chooses to interact, IM (ok, maybe not very H in this instance)O.
> 
>>  
>> - 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> Dave Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple
> 
> singer@apple.com
> 
> 
>