- From: TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT) <Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:05:00 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I think the point here - and the big difference with example 11 - is that the user knows that he'll go through "bit.ly" redirection and decides to click on the link. Bit.ly could legitimately be viewed as a first party providing a redirection service. If we say that “bit.ly” is a third party, then we should say the same of all ad-networks who redirect users clicking on ads. Also, every website could know from which site a visitor comes and where he goes when he clicks on an outbound link. Vincent ________________________________________ >10. A user sees a tweet which says "Check out this awesome NYT article >bit.ly/1234". The user clicks the link, expecting to be redirected by >bitly to the New York Times. Twitter, bitly and the New York Times are >all first parties to this interaction. If you tell bit.ly you do not want to be tracked, and they install a userid cookie on your computer and record all the bit.ly links you click, where you clicked them and where they took you, then they are not tracking you across sites because they are a first party? That does not make sense to me. -- 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 Sunday, 13 November 2011 20:40:02 UTC