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

RE: TPE Document, S2.3 P1

From: Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:49:02 -0400
To: "'Ashkan Soltani'" <ashkan.soltani@gmail.com>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "'Tom Lowenthal'" <tom@mozilla.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014701cc9827$ac136340$043a29c0$@futureofprivacy.org>
Seconding Ashkan. I think we need further discussion because I think we may
have disagreement about the need to be clear that including mobile apps is a
key goal here.

 

From: Ashkan Soltani [mailto:ashkan.soltani@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 7:44 PM
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Tom Lowenthal; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: TPE Document, S2.3 P1

 

FWIW, I have to date *NEVER* seen a mobile app that speaks to 'one service
exclusively'.  Even singular apps (such as Google Maps) still ping location
services from the carrier, etc.

 

Furthermore, I *don't* think mobile apps should be explicitly excluded since
mobile apps now supplant much of the work that web browsers do.  IE They
often frame the web service with much of the same 3rd party tracking issues
discussed here, often with precisely the same 3rd party add APIs via HTTP
that the standard website uses. 

 

Carving out specific exemptions for mobile, etc would reduce the long term
impact of this effort. (i.e non future-proof)

-a

 

 

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

I made the following change, which conveys the same thing but without
the double negative and paragraph break.

....Roy

Index: tracking-dnt.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -r1.29 -r1.30
--- tracking-dnt.html   31 Oct 2011 23:11:47 -0000      1.29
+++ tracking-dnt.html   31 Oct 2011 23:30:53 -0000      1.30
@@ -210,9 +210,11 @@

          defined by this specification is applicable to all forms of user
          agent, the compliance requirements are specifically concerned with
          the privacy expectations of a human user and the tracking of their
-          browsing history over time.  Hence, user agents that do not have
-          some form of "browsing" nature or do not communicate with more
-          than one site are not expected to comply with this protocol.

+          browsing history over time.
+          User agents that do not have a <q>browsing</q> nature, such as
+          mobile apps that communicate with one service exclusively, are
not
+          the intended target for this protocol, though they can implement
+          the protocol if they so desire.
        </p>



 
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 23:50:26 UTC

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