- From: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:49:53 -0700
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYJvnLJiEgc4GWFB=TdYSiNna1tgCUwnHHWqgZxVT52q6CUYw@mail.gmail.com>
Since this issue is about HOW a party knows whether it's a 1p or a 3p, and we're also fine with these approaches to the edge cases, I agree that we can close ISSUE 60. On 11 April 2012 11:40, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > We’re unable to accept this draft. L**** > > ** ** > > I’d rather we leverage the text that Jonathan and I originally used to > highlight that a 3rd party should be able to identify its activities as a > 3rd party in most situations. There are edge cases where content can be > re-hosted outside of 1st party knowledge (iFraming, Mashable, etc.) thus > making it 3rd party but we agreed to not attempt to cripple legitimate 1stparty practices for these outcomes. > **** > > ** ** > > I further offered non-normative text on methods for 3rd parties to know > they are 3rd parties in most cases (known 3rd party vs. accidental 3rdparty). > **** > > ** ** > > - Shane**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Peter Eckersley [mailto:peter.eckersley@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:23 PM > *To:* Tracking Protection Working Group WG > *Subject:* ISSUE-60: proposed to close**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > -- Peter
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:50:22 UTC