- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:28:19 -0800
- To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
- CC: Haakon Bratsberg <haakon.bratsberg@opera.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I cannot think of any cases where a Service Provider is not somehow receiving compensation for their services from the 1st Party. If it helps, we can add this to the definition to make it very clear. - Shane -----Original Message----- From: rob@blaeu.com [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:00 AM To: Shane Wiley Cc: Haakon Bratsberg; Karl Dubost; rob@blaeu.com; public-tracking@w3.org Subject: RE: technical, business, legal definitions Question, is there any contractual realtion between the controller and the Service Provider? I mean, if there is a money-flow, there will most likely be a paper trail. If so, then Shane is correct. Rob Shane Wiley wrote: > Haakon, > > Agreed - but our extended Service Provider definition includes "with no > independent rights to use the data outside of 1st party direction" which > is fairly aligned with the general legal tenets of a Data Processor > definition. > > Again - open for subjective interpretation due to the lack of more detail > but generally "very close". > > - Shane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Haakon Bratsberg [mailto:haakon.bratsberg@opera.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:13 PM > To: Shane Wiley > Cc: Karl Dubost; rob@blaeu.com; public-tracking@w3.org > (public-tracking@w3.org) > Subject: Re: technical, business, legal definitions > > On 25. jan. 2012, at 18:53, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > >> Generally whether expected or not, we've come close to this same >> structure (to some degree) with the following terms: >> >> - 1st Party (Data Controller) >> - Service Provider (Data Processor) >> - 3rd Party (3rd Party) > > I do not expect Service Provider = Data Processor to be globally true. It > depends on the legal relationship between 1st Part and Service Provider. > > Haakon > > >> >> - Shane >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:57 AM >> To: rob@blaeu.com >> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) >> Subject: technical, business, legal definitions >> >> This morning in Bruxelles, Roy proposed to use the definitions of >> European commission prose about >> >> * Processor >> * Third Parties >> * Controller >> >> Rob said that it was better to focus on technical definitions, than the >> legal, business ones of Europe. Currently, I have the feeling that our >> definitions are _not_ technical specifically in the compliance document. >> A technical definition of 1st party/3rd party in terms of the HTTP >> protocol will be very defined but it's not what we have done so far. >> >> >> -- >> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ >> Developer Relations, Opera Software >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 09:29:35 UTC