- From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:48:05 -0400
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Apologies for entering the conversation late, and for being uninformed about the original definition. Given that today most major first party sites have contracts with third parties--including data providers--so they can incorporate outside profiling data on their users for internal targeting (and also perhaps sell it on exchanges and through other brokers) shouldn't users be assured [via the definition] that no exchange of data is occurring between the first and third parties? On Oct 26, 2011, at 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. > > > -- > 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 Friday, 28 October 2011 12:03:23 UTC