W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

RE: "cross-site"

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:30:59 -0800
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
CC: Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>, 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>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D03B9B69E@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Friendly recommended amendment:

Alter statement to read "First parties must NOT share user specific data with 3rd parties for those user who send the DNT signal and have not granted a site-specific exception to the 1st party."  This will leave room for sharing with Agents/Service Providers/Vendors to the 1st party -- as well as sharing aggregate and anonymous data with "others" (general reporting, for example).  

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:51 PM
To: John Simpson
Cc: Jules Polonetsky; Nicholas Doty; Roy T. Fielding; Mark Nottingham; Karl Dubost; <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: "cross-site"

Sorry, left out NOT.  First parties must NOT share data with others.

John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
Tel: 310-392-7041

On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:45 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> 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 04:32:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:42 UTC