- From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:06:04 -0800
- To: Jonathan Robert Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, "<public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <687D0D3D-524E-4BE9-A54C-EB0D87A8E02B@consumerwatchdog.org>
Thanks. Got it. Agree with the principle. ---------------- John M. Simpson Consumer Advocate Consumer Watchdog Tel: 310-392-7041 On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Jonathan Robert Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote: > *resending since copy+paste fail* > > Suppose a first party doesn't want third-party resources on its site, so it sends web server logs to a third-party analytics service instead of embedding a script or pixel. So long as the data transferred is data the third party could have collected under the outsourcing exception, this text would allow the practice. > > At a higher level, this text is just another instance of the principle (shared by many around the table, I believe) that we should not be (to the extent possible) drafting language that is technology-specific. > > On Nov 18, 2011, at 1:19 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote: > >> Thanks, Jonathan. Interesting proposal. Can you please give me an example of what data a First Party site could transfer under the "may otherwise transfer data" language? >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:42 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote: >> >>> Agreed. Between the discussion in Santa Clara, this thread, and these threads, I think we're very close to a consensus on first-party obligations. Some time ago I drafted this text for the compliance document: >>> >>>> First-Party Requirements: >>>> This standard imposes no requirements on first-party websites. A first-party website MAY take steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request. >>> >>> Here's what I would now propose: >>> >>> First-Party Website Requirements >>> >>> 1. Transfer of Data to a Third-Party Website >>> A first-party website MUST NOT transfer data to a third-party website that the third-party website could not collect itself under this standard. A first-party website MAY otherwise transfer data to a third-party website. >>> >>> 2. Additional Voluntary Measures >>> A first-party website MAY take additional steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request. >>> >>> a. Example Voluntary Measures (Non-Normative) >>> […] >>> >>> ...and then... >>> >>> Third-Party Website Requirements >>> >>> 1. Transfer of Data from a First-Party Website >>> If a third-party website receives data from a first-party website, the data is subject to the same collection, retention, and use limitations under this standard as if the third-party website had collected the data itself. >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> (tags: ISSUE-17, ISSUE-51) >>> >>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Ed Felten wrote: >>> >>>> It seems to me that there might be substantial agreement here. As I >>>> understand John, he was positing two reasons for sending a DNT flag to >>>> first parties: (1) when DNT is enabled, first parties shouldn't >>>> circumvent the limits on third-party collection by collecting data and >>>> then sharing it with third parties, and (2) some first parties might >>>> choose voluntarily to go beyond what the standard requires when they >>>> see a DNT flag. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> wrote: >>>>> This is where there is a fundamental split amongst the parties. We had a >>>>> discussion several weeks ago about the first party obligations and I pointed >>>>> out that IAB and my member companies generally support the U.S. FTC position >>>>> that consumers don't expect first parties to be subject to such >>>>> restrictions. Those positions have not changed. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Zaneis >>>>> SVP & General Counsel, IAB >>>>> (202) 253-1466 >>>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:56 PM, "John Simpson" <john@consumerwatchdog.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shane, >>>>> I don't understand why we would say that a 1st party most likely will not be >>>>> subject to the DNT signal. If we continue to use the 1st party/ 3rd party >>>>> distinction, it will likely (almost certainly) have different and probably >>>>> fewer obligations than a third party. It should still be subject to the >>>>> signal. >>>>> As a user I want the 1st party site to know that I have DNT configured. As >>>>> a 1st party site operator I want to know a visitor has configured DNT and is >>>>> sending me the signal. There will be some "musts", ie not sharing data from >>>>> a DNT configured user with 3rd parties, but if I am a responsible site >>>>> operator I may chose to go further in honoring the DNT request. For >>>>> instance I might chose to not even include the visitor in my analytics. I >>>>> need to know if DNT is configured and the way this happens is by being >>>>> subject to the DNT signal. >>>>> The obligations are different, but its important that we think of all sites >>>>> being subject to the DNT signal, once it is configured in the browser. >>>>> >>>>> 73s, >>>>> John >>>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Shane Wiley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Karl, >>>>> >>>>> This statement is an attempt to remove the concern that a 1st party, which >>>>> will mostly likely not be subject to the DNT signal, does not have a >>>>> backdoor opportunity to pass user data directly to a 3rd party (aka - >>>>> closing a loop-hole). 3rd parties present on the 1st party's web site >>>>> should honor the DNT signal directly. >>>>> >>>>> - Shane >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 5:40 AM >>>>> To: Shane Wiley >>>>> Cc: John Simpson; Jules Polonetsky; Nicholas Doty; Roy T. Fielding; Mark >>>>> Nottingham; <public-tracking@w3.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: "cross-site" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 16 nov. 2011 à 23:30, Shane Wiley a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> I guess you mean >>>>> s/DNT signal/DNT:1 signal" >>>>> >>>>> Trying to understand what you are saying. >>>>> >>>>> 1. User sends DNT:1 to a website with domain name www.example.org >>>>> 2. www.example.org collects data about the user >>>>> (IP address and categories of pages the user visits) >>>>> 3. Company Acme Hosting Inc. (a 3rd party) has access to these >>>>> data NOT through the Web but through an access to the logs file. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is happening? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ >>>>> Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- >>>>> John M. Simpson >>>>> Consumer Advocate >>>>> Consumer Watchdog >>>>> 1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200 >>>>> Santa Monica, CA,90405 >>>>> Tel: 310-392-7041 >>>>> Cell: 310-292-1902 >>>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org >>>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ---------- >> John M. Simpson >> Consumer Advocate >> Consumer Watchdog >> 1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200 >> Santa Monica, CA,90405 >> Tel: 310-392-7041 >> Cell: 310-292-1902 >> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org >> john@consumerwatchdog.org >>
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2011 21:06:43 UTC