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

Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:49:13 +0100
To: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <qbg1h75q1guhjk9unvmh6f74m88baph65j@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* David Wainberg wrote:
>An example of unnecessary ambiguity and complexity? I think it's 
>obvious. I assume two things. First, that the determination of covered 
>data usage and collection will be necessary with or without the 
>party-based approach. Second, that the determination of covered usage 
>and collection is alone sufficient. Therefore the party-based definition 
>adds unnecessary and avoidable complexity. The ambiguity comes from the 
>difficulty in making those party-based determinations. Our conversations 
>on this point to date demonstrate this difficulty.

No, I am looking for a forensical example scenario. As I understand it,
you are saying there are cases where you can tell me all the things that
happend, a user visited certain sites, that triggered data flows, then
information about these data flows is handled such and such, and with a
party-based definition it would be difficult for me to tell whether all
that happened was in keeping with the dnt specifications, but with some
cross-site definition that would be much easier.

I assume a proper example would be more complex than this, but in order
to illustrate consider there is a presentation at Yahoo! where someone
says "IP address used Yahoo! search to look for 'apple', then he
changed the query to 'apple fruit', among the results was a flickr link
and after loading that the user clicked through these four apple photos"
and if the user had dnt enabled, I understand you as saying that whether
this can happen while complying with the dnt specifications is difficult
to tell with party-based definitions, but a site-based definition would
make it very easy to tell.

Note that I assume that "who" is very important. If I come by your place
and we have a chat, I won't mind that you obtain and memorize details of
my visit, but if someone follows me around and records all the places I
go in a single database, that would be quite a different thing. In this
sense it seems likely to me that trying to define "cross-site" would end
up in a "cross-party" definition, so there wouldn't be much difference.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2012 00:49:36 UTC

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