Re: cross-site tracking (was diff of TPE editing since the FPWD)

As I, and I think others, have suggested previously, if we can define 
the data collection and use that is the concern of this group, the 1st 
vs 3rd party distinction is irrelevant. My understanding from the 
beginning has been that the primary concern, and the primary target of 
DNT, is data collected across unrelated websites over time (or something 
in that ballpark). I did not think there was much, if any, dissent about 
this, and my recollection from Cambridge of the proposed definitions of 
tracking is that they were all pretty close to this idea.

Assuming this is the case, it doesn't matter whether the party is 1st or 
3rd or 6th or 127th. It only matters if the data collected falls within 
the definition of (cross-site) tracking. Of course, we still face the 
challenge of defining what this data is, including defining 
"cross-site", but as I think Shane has pointed out, we're going to have 
to do so regardless. This will be an easier task than defining 1st and 
3rd party. And it will save us from infinite ambiguity regarding who is 
1st or 3rd party under what circumstances.

David Singer wrote:
> I think the phrase 'cross-site tracking' is open to a wide variety of interpretations, some (many) of which some (many) people might object to.
We can't, in my opinion, escape defining this. If we're going to have a 
compliance doc accompanying the technical spec, that doc is going to 
have to define the data it covers. I realize some of us would take the 
approach of saying all data, and then providing excepted uses, but I am 
convinced that will not work.
> I think we should write the document talking about 'tracking' and defining what is allowed and what is not.  If that fits what some people think of as 'cross site tracking' that's fine.
I think we're confused about whether (or when) we're concerned about 
collection vs. use. We need to get clear.

Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 19:27:00 UTC