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

Re: first parties

From: Clay Webster <clay.webster@cbsinteractive.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:57:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CACOLfqd9QBn3dcDppneu_FAY6qNu7JgEeUSnz76rE=NzKoiSEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:


> With Tom's Addition:
> "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 and SHOULD improve notice with respect to DNT."
>
> I agree with the Initial Statement but feel that Tom's request was out of
> scope to suggest first parties must improve notice across the board (not
> just with respect to DNT).
>
> I would suggest the following (hopefully a winning middle-ground):
> "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 and SHOULD provide appropriate notice in what manner
> they support Do Not Track if they chose to do so."
>

I could agree with this.  I think the "if they chose to do so" could be left
off given that it's a SHOULD.

What form(s) would "appropriate notice" normally take?

--cw

Clay Webster
Associate Vice President, Platform Infrastructure
T 908-541-3724   F 908-575-7474
1200 Route 22 East, Bridgewater NJ 08807
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 11:57:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:41 UTC