RE: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

John,

While they may not be "officially" closed I'd agree with JC that they feel very close to closure - and your proposal of what users would expect in a 1st party context is a fairly significant departure from where the group is at this point.  I continue to believe, as many others do, that users expect that the company/web site they are visiting directly will be collecting information and leveraging that data to power the user's experience with that 1st party.  If we ultimately agree with this position as a group, we'll need to ensure consumer/user educational materials, campaigns, privacy policies, etc. are clear on this point (as well as other key definitions users should build their DNT expectations around).

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 8:14 PM
To: JC Cannon
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

JC,

The issue tracker lists both Issue-17 and Issue-51 as open issues.  I understand that to mean they have not been decided. Perhaps the record keeping has not kept up with the discussions, but I thought Aleecia spent much of her holidays ensuring that all the threads were properly associated with issues.

Roy,

Sorry, I don't follow you. Why is DNT orthogonal to private browsing?  I'm simply trying to state what my expectation is as a user if I enable DNT.  I intuitively expect to interact with a 1st Party for that transaction, but why would I expect the site to continue to use that information for anything in the future if I have enabled DNT?

73s,
John


On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:59 PM, JC Cannon wrote:


John,

I believe we are already in agreement that DNT will not apply to 1st party sites. I understand the need to clarify that 3rd-party sharing will be limited to certain exceptions, but I don't want to revisit something we have already agreed on.

JC
Twitter<http://twitter.com/jccannon7>

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:47 PM
To: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
Subject: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

Colleagues,

I've been thinking a bit more about the idea of "1st Party" obligations if we use the frame of a 1st Party and 3rd Party distinction.  It seems clear to me that there is consensus that the 1st Party must not share data (some will say there are exceptions) with a 3rd party when DNT is enabled.

It does seem to me there are further obligations.  When I go to a 1st party  site and interact with it, I assume it is using my information for that transaction.  If I
have DNT enabled, I don't have ANY expectation that it will continue to use that information beyond that transaction.  The site should ask me if it can continue to store the information and use it beyond that specific visit to the site.

In other words from my perspective as a user, a 1st Party site should treat me as if I had cleared all my cookies the next time I visit the site if I have DNT enabled.

When DNT is enabled, a 1st party should treat each session with a user as an entirely new session unless it has been given permission to store his information and use it again.

73s,
John
----------
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<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto: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<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>