W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2012

Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:39:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0F36E2.6070603@appnexus.com>
To: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>


On 1/12/12 9:48 AM, Ed Felten wrote:
> Is this "cross-site" discussion a debate about substance, or only
> about terminology?
>
> We're looking at two approaches.  In one approach we essentially say
> "no third-party tracking," and then we very carefully define what
> "third-party" means.  In the other approach we say "no cross-site
> tracking," and then we very carefully define what "cross-site" means.
>   In both cases we have to specify what constitutes the same
> party/site.  In both cases we will presumably create the obvious set
> of exceptions.
In either case, we need to define (cross-site) "tracking", right? Let's 
just define the data collection and use we're concerned with, and skip 
defining the parties. As I've argued before, we are doing this 
backwards. We've been trying to back into a definition of tracking by 
defining parties and use exceptions. But if we just define the 
collection and use that constitutes tracking, first the need refinements 
via exceptions, etc. will become quite clear, and second, most 
everything else will fall into place.
> It could be--and please help me understand whether this is true--that
> we will end up writing a standard that allows and disallows the same
> things, regardless of which approach we take.  Or is there a
> substantive disagreement lurking beneath the terminology?
I think it's not been clear because we have avoided directly addressing 
the underlying substantive issue, i.e. what exactly do we think DNT 
should prohibit. I suspect we will find substantive disagreement that we 
can postpone, but not avoid.
>
> To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that terminology doesn't matter,
> nor that we shouldn't discuss terminology.  I'm just saying that it's
> good to be clear about what is and isn't at stake in this part of the
> discussion.
Agreed!
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 20:04:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC