Re: "cross-site"

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