- From: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:38:10 -0400
- To: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:39:00 UTC
Forgive me if I've missed it, but have we decided that there is or isn't a reasonable way to make that determination? On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>wrote: > Issue 60 raises the question of whether a recipient of a DNT: 1 header > knows whether it is in fact a first or a third party. This can in some > instances be ambiguous: for instance a host of an image may not be able to > tell the difference between users who follow a hyperlink to that image (in > which case they host is a 1st party) and users who are seeing the image > randomly embedded on some other page (in which case the host is arguably a > 3rd party) > > The text that Tom, Jonathan and I drafted resolves this with the following > language: > > A "first party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that can > infer with high > probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with > it. Otherwise, a > party is a third party. > > A "third party" is any party, in a specific network interaction, that > cannot infer with high > probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it. > > If the authors of other drafts are willing to accept our "high > probability" standard for resolving this issue, it can be closed. > > -- > Peter > -- Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:39:00 UTC