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

Re: ISSUE-5: What is the definition of tracking?

From: Sean Harvey <sharvey@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:01:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFy-vuefzj5NrmNO6XEJ+oFgT6dp8wCyXWbKoTzViyFm77_kSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I agree that organizational boundaries matter. I also think they would be
easier to define & enforce than "commonly branded" sites from our strawman
doc, which came into focus for me following Justin's question to us all
during yesterday's weekly call.

My concern around "commonly branded" is that it is slipperier concept and
more open to interpretation. I heard some potentially vague expressions of
what commonly branded means yesterday: "it's common knowledge that company
a owns site b" etc. How do we enshrine that in a compliance standard? how
does brand A understand whether its common ownership relationship with
brand B is common knowledge? And if we take the more austere interpretation
it lends to some very weird outcomes (different branded TV show sites from
a given network are not considered first party, etc).

And what happens when we come up with our interpretation of "commonly
branded" and five years later a new set of regulators in the united states
or an EU country come up with a different one? The concern is there may be
no way for anyone to understand what they are really signing up for given
the "commonly branded" terminology. Using an organizational boundary makes
things more transparent and puts things in black & white.
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 15:01:51 UTC

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