- From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:36:36 -0500
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 1/12/12 1:26 PM, David Singer wrote: > My problems with the term 'cross-site' are two-fold: > > a) I think users are asking "don't track me" and they will see "don't cross-site track me" as restricting some, but not nearly all, of what they worry about. I don't see why "don't track me" is any more clear than "don't cross-site track me." In fact, it's less clear. "Don't track me" implies something much more broad than we intend, and as such it's actually bad for users because it promises more than they're getting. > b) I think some sites will break the formal rules but claim that what they are doing is not "cross-site" and so is allowed. Why is this more likely than without using "cross-site"? It comes down to how we define it. We could just as likely see the same problem with parties claiming they are not "3rd parties" if we continue down the 1st vs 3rd path. > We could argue in both cases that they should read the document and the definitions and rules, but in both cases I fear the damage is done before that. This is behind some of the (slightly emotional) resistance to what could be, after all, merely a terminology question. > > This is assuming we agree on a definition, of course, of what we're restricting…maybe then we'll be able to decide what label to give it. Absolutely agree! Let's get consensus on what exactly this is supposed to do -- with regard to data collection and use practices -- and then it will be easier to agree on a label that accurately describes it.
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 15:47:41 UTC