Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

Colleagues,

I've been following this thread with interest since Roy's first email providing us with the document showing changes in the TPE since publication of the FPWD.  The document was very helpful and I appreciate receiving it.

It also left me puzzled, for like Rigo, I have no recollection of any consensus to add "cross-tracking" to that document.  I've always understood there to be consensus around the idea that the obligations under DNT for third parties are far greater than those on first parties.  Clearly there are obligations on first parties. I suspect I'd like to see greater obligations on them than many in the group, but that is beside the point here. At a minimum it's clear that a first party must not share data with a third party (yes there will be specified exceptions.) 

According to our charter,

"The mission of the Tracking Protection Working Group, part of the Privacy Activity, is to improve user privacy and user control by defining mechanisms for expressing user preferences around Web tracking and for blocking or allowing Web tracking elements.

"The Working Group will produce Recommendation-track specifications for a simple machine-readable preference expression mechanism ("Do Not Track") and technologies for selectively allowing or blocking tracking elements."

I understand that to mean we're talking about tracking in the broadest and that in the TC document we would specify what the obligations might be when DNT is encountered. The TPE should only be about the technical means to express the user's preference. Indeed the obligations could be different in some countries because of different regulatory regimes and might in those cases be even greater than what's spelled out in the TC.

The TPE should only be about the technical aspects of sending the user's preference.  The TC is where we should deal deal with compliance obligations.  Using "cross-site" in the TPE  inappropriately limits expressing the user's preference.  If we use cross-site language, the place for it would in parts of the TC document.  However, I think we've used the first and third party model and are making genuine progress here.  I don't see why we  would abandon it. 

Also, I agree strongly with Jonathan Mayer's suggestion that the current TPE introduction is misplaced in the TPE.  This sort of language belongs in the TC document.

 I am committed to trying to find consensus and was deeply troubled by what I understood to be Roy's suggestion that he would leave the working group if the language of the TPE is changed back to the original as published in the FPWD. I hope I misunderstood what he meant for he has been a valuable contributor helping to  drive this importatnt process.  I know we don't share all our views, but I do believe we share enough that consensus if possible.

I look forward to the F2F in Brussels.  I fear that emails aren't always the most productive way to exchange thoughts.

73s,
John





On Jan 11, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> I think there's a language ambiguity here.  Some consider "cross-site tracking" to be about correlating user actions on unrelated websites.  Others consider "cross-site tracking" to be about information practices by third-party websites.  In light of the ambiguity, I'd support dropping the term from the Preference Expression document and replacing it with something more neutral.
> 
> Moreover, at a higher level, I don't think compliance policy questions belong in that document.  Preference Expression should be a technical vehicle for whatever Compliance and Scope specifies - no more and no less.  I would support clarifying that principle in the documents and trimming the lengthy policy-based introduction from the Preference Expression document.
> 
> I am very sensitive to Roy's and Kevin's concern that the group not move away from its consensus that this standard will impose (almost) no limits on first-party conduct.  I believe the current proposals for Compliance and Scope accurately reflect that consensus.  To the extent they don't,  debate should be held in the context of that document, not surrounding an ambiguous turn of phrase elsewhere.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> 
>> Kevin, 
>> 
>> can you explain cross-site tracking by first parties to me? I just point out 
>> the logic break here. Either we talk about first vs third parties or we solely 
>> scope the entire exercise and scope to "cross-site tracking".
>> 
>> Rigo
>> 
>> On Wednesday 11 January 2012 11:13:08 Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> Actually, at least in the early meetings, I believe we had near consensus
>>> that the objective of this working group would be focused around cross-site
>>> tracking (despite a somewhat confusing name of DNT).  Most of the current
>>> issues and discussions are reflective of this direction - such as defining
>>> affiliates, 1st vs 3rd parties, and exceptions to when cross-site tracking
>>> are permissible such as rate frequency capping.
>>> 
>>> If that is still true, I think it's imperative to have it spelled out as Roy
>>> has done in the doc to avoid as much confusion as possible.
>> 
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 5:57 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> Hi Roy, 
> 
> the technical specification consistently uses "cross-site tracking" for every 
> mention of tracking. Despite some quick search, I haven't found a decision to 
> only talk about "cross-site tracking". Can you indicate where this was 
> decided?
> 
> If it wasn't already decided, I unfortunately must raise an issue. Because 
> saying "cross-site tracking" consistently in the technical preference 
> expression specification would change the scope of the DNT-header and reduce it 
> to mere cross-site data collection. While I say you expressing that 
> preference, I also saw opposition against that wording. Additionally, saying 
> "cross-site tracking" does not correspond to the first party requirements 
> indicated in the Tracking Compliance Specification and also trespasses into the 
> scope of the tracking compliance specification. 

Thanks Rigo,

Please feel free to raise this as an issue -- I have no intention of changing
that without consensus since I won't be participating in this WG if it is
changed.  It was, after all, the basis of all input documents and regulatory
concerns, where tracking was defined as cross-site tracking.

Cheers,

....Roy
> 

----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org