- From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:45:53 -0800
- To: Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>
- Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "<public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I think there are some "must" requirements on first party sites. specifically they must share data with others ... ---------------- John M. Simpson Consumer Advocate Consumer Watchdog Tel: 310-392-7041 On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:24 PM, "Jules Polonetsky" <julespol@futureofprivacy.org> wrote: > I thought there was consensus that requirements on first parties were "may" > and third parties were "must" or "shall". > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:20 PM > To: Roy T. Fielding > Cc: John Simpson; Mark Nottingham; Karl Dubost; public-tracking@w3.org WG > (public-tracking@w3.org) > Subject: Re: "cross-site" > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:59 PM, John Simpson wrote: >> >>> Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't understand why we need the > reference to "cross-site" nor to "across sites." As a user I want to send a > clear and unambiguous signal that I do not wish to be tracked. I may be > persuaded that first party sites and third party sites have different > obligations when my message is received, but I definitely want both first > and third party sites to get my message. Thus, I believe the specification > should simply read: >>> >>> "This specification defines the technical mechanisms for expressing a > tracking preference via the DNT request header field in HTTP." >> >> No, we've already had this conversation. >> >> We chose to make exceptions for analytics and first-party-exclusive > tracking from the preference expression because they are not a privacy > concern, they do match user expectations, and are necessary for DNT > adoption. > > As John points out, while we do seem to agree that first and third parties > may have different requirements, I'm not aware of a consensus decision that > first parties are entirely excepted from the standards. In fact, the > compliance document currently contains a "First Party Compliance" section, > ISSUE-17 remains open and first parties could provide meaningful responses > with the proposed response header. > > I also don't remember us choosing to grant an exception for analytics, > besides highlighting that for later discussion. ISSUEs 23 and 24 haven't > been opened yet, though the work on 73 suggests a direction for one type of > analytics. > >> The combination of those two choices requires that we place an adjective > before tracking in order to properly define the meaning of the header field. > "cross-site" is good enough for me. We can replace it if somebody comes up > with a better shorthand term. > > I'd be happy with John's suggested text, or with whatever language we land > on in the compliance document (there are open issues there about > "behavioral" as a potential modifier for this purpose). > > -Nick
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 03:47:10 UTC