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

Re: Proposed definition of 1st parties

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:14:40 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA85C20.6080104@appnexus.com>
To: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Does this definition of first party treat widgets as pure first party? A 
more narrow definition would say "The user is explicitly visiting a 
web-site of this party."

But are we using the 1st vs 3rd party distinction as a proxy for user 
expectations? I think we are. If so, can't we go right to the 
expectations, identify the relevant elements, and set fair boundaries? 
If we do so, won't the rest fall into place naturally? Relevant elements 
include: who collects, stores, transfers, or receives the data; the 
nature of the data; the length and location of storage -- and what else?

On 10/26/11 1:25 PM, Matthias Schunter wrote:
> 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.
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 19:15:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:26 UTC