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

I actually agree with you. I want to make sure we balance privacy protect with real consumer expectation. It would probably be prudent to conduct a survey around these new social features to make sure we get the application of DNT on social widgets right.

JC
Twitter<http://twitter.com/jccannon7>

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:50 AM
To: JC Cannon
Cc: Shane Wiley; Dave Singer; Bryan Sullivan; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Re ISSUE-26: When a 3rd party becomes a 1st party

JC:  I am sure you agree that that facilitating DNT (in privacy content)  and innovation are linked; they are not oppositional concepts.  An effective DNT system for widgets won't "stifle" anything.  On the contrary, it will boost consumer confidence in my opinion.   And the issue of "value" depends on one's pov. Consumers require meaningful control.

Jeff


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

On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:13 PM, JC Cannon wrote:


I would like to point out that logged in users find value from 3rd-party widgets that inform them when friends and family members like an article, restaurant or hotel in which a consumer may be interested. I would hate to see us stifle innovation that is seen as valuable to consumers.

JC
Twitter<http://twitter.com/jccannon7>

From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:41 AM
To: Dave Singer
Cc: Jeffrey Chester; Bryan Sullivan; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Re ISSUE-26: When a 3rd party becomes a 1st party

David,

I share your view on this point but obviously not "all" of us do.  :)

Thus far, the general consensus has been that an impression of a 3rd party widget must be treated as a 3rd party situation (seen but not touched, so to speak).  If there is "meaningful interaction" (not just a mouse over), then this should be treated as a 1st party situation if several additional conditions are met: 1) prominent branding of the 1st party (in some cases, such as the FB Like button, I would argue this already has prominent branding without saying "Facebook") and 2) a link to that parties home page / privacy policy.

Jonathan and I led a detailed discussion on this topic several months ago - and it's based on that string that I draw the conclusion of "general consensus".

- Shane

From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:34 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Jeffrey Chester; Bryan Sullivan; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Re ISSUE-26: When a 3rd party becomes a 1st party


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<mailto: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<http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
www.digitalads.org<http://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<mailto:singer@apple.com>