RE: Should we treat 1st and 3rd parties differently?

> The way I understand it, "do not cross track" is a misnomer; as it is in your presentation, it really just means your actions on one site should not affect your experience on another site. You do mention "silo" but it seems that apart from that it does not affect tracking at all, and it is not very likely that an advertising network would silo data any better than not executing joins over certain tables during ad-selection.

I don't actually consider that to be a misnomer.  That is exactly what I believe cross tracking to mean.  Do not mix data from this site with data from that site.  So, Do Not Cross Track would not prevent tracking, just cross-tracking.  I agree with your comment about the joins though, which is why we have an open issue discussing how data must be siloed in order to be compliant.  I don't think that issue is finalized yet, but I believe the requirements were more stringent.  

I will not argue that it would not match some people's definition of Tracking Protection.  I actually think that is inevitable regardless of our solution. However, regardless of the title, the general attitude of those present at the original meeting in Cambridge (at least in my interpretation of their comments) seemed to be that the objective of the working group was to provide a mechanism for users to state their desire to prevent cross tracking.  That was at least part of the impetus for allowing 1st party tracking - (almost?) the entire group stated that their intent was not prevent a site from tracking its visitors, but to prevent things like cross site targeting (and thus cross site tracking).  If that is no longer the case, we should probably clarify our intent.

My point was that I think we can define cross tracking irrespective of party, and doing so will greatly simplify our documentation.


 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 4:46 PM
To: Kevin Smith
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should we treat 1st and 3rd parties differently?

* Kevin Smith wrote:
>Sorry - I tried to send this the day after our last call, but the 
>presentation exceeded the mailing list's 512k file limit.

You can use the www-archive@w3.org mailing list for attachments up to 10 MB I believe and send a link to the message in the archive available via <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/>, for what it's worth.

The way I understand it, "do not cross track" is a misnomer; as it is in your presentation, it really just means your actions on one site should not affect your experience on another site. You do mention "silo" but it seems that apart from that it does not affect tracking at all, and it is not very likely that an advertising network would silo data any better than not executing joins over certain tables during ad-selection.

Here in Germany web sites are putting popular widgets behind shims where you have to first activate the widgets before you can use them, before they become active and could result in the widget operator tracking any- one; they do this even though the widget operators claim they do not use the "visit" data so obtained to adapt content or advertising (for now).

That your behavior on one site should not affect your experience on some other site is something very tangible and easy to define and build con- sensus around, considering there are plenty of opt-out buttons for this already, but it would be disingenuous to call that tracking protection.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 01:09:06 UTC