- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:28:18 -0700
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I find the simpler "1st Party" vs. "3rd Party" distinction easier to work around versus adding a net new designation of "Affiliate" that may not be equal to either of those conditionally. I would rather a stance of "An Affiliate will be considered a 1st party in the following situations: common branding, common privacy policy, common TOS control, [etc.] and is a considered a 3rd party in all other situations". - Shane -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Schunter [mailto:mts@zurich.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:57 AM To: Shane Wiley Cc: public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposed definition of 1st parties Hi Shane, my purpose was to define the terms FIRST_PARTY AFFILIATE In a separate discussion, we need to define what subset of the 'relaxed requirements' that we define for FIRST PARTIES should also hold for the AFFILIATEs. Currently, I assumed that both fall under the same relaxations. However, we may find cases where both groups should be handled differently. Regards, matthias On 10/26/2011 7:38 PM, Shane Wiley wrote: > Matthias, > > I agree with the proposal if FIRST PARTIES = AFFILIATES in this definition. That appears to be "open" from the language below: > > A FIRST PARTY MUST be able to reliably determine that > - The user has explicitly visited a web-site of this party > - That the user has consciously and willingly interacted with it > > An AFFILIATE MUST be able to reliably determine > [criteria defined elsewhere: suggestions were > - co-branding > - co-ownership > - same origin...] > > All other parties SHOULD be considered THIRD PARTY. > > - Shane > > Shane Wiley > VP, Privacy & Data Governance > Yahoo! > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Schunter > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:25 AM > To: public-tracking@w3.org > Subject: Proposed definition of 1st parties > > Hi Folks, > > > enclosed is the proposal on a definition of 1st parties as indicated > on the call. > > An assumption is that FIRST PARTIES and AFFILIATES will later need to > satisfy relaxed requirements compared to THIRD PARTIES. > > The goals of the def are: > - Not to fix the mechanisms. > - To put the burden of proof/implementation/mechanism/design > on the parties that want to fall under the exemptions. > > > Regards, > matthias > > > A FIRST PARTY MUST be able to reliably determine that > - The user has explicitly visited a web-site of this party > - That the user has consciously and willingly interacted with it > > An AFFILIATE MUST be able to reliably determine > [criteria defined elsewhere: suggestions were > - co-branding > - co-ownership > - same origin...] > > All other parties SHOULD be considered THIRD PARTY. > > -- Dr. Matthias Schunter, MBA IBM Research - Zurich, Switzerland Ph. +41 (44) 724-8329, schunter(at)acm.org PGP 989A A3ED 21A1 9EF2 B005 8374 BE0E E10D VCard: http://www.schunter.org/schunter.vcf
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 18:28:49 UTC