Re: [ISSUE-5] What is the definition of tracking?

Roy just says that the first party may chose to adapt the service, this 
doesn't make his definition apply to first parties. I would welcome this 
option for first parties (without proscribing it), but such deliberate good 
behavior by first parties will only get a market if they can convey the 
message back to the user that they do good things. For the moment, in the 
protocol, first parties can't. We could imagine that the first party can also 
respond to a DNT=1 request. Again, completely optional...

And don't forget that the consent "opt-back-in" thingy is needed for consent 
in the EU context also for first parties. There the landscape is just 
different with some needs that will not affect the US discussion. But we 
shouldn't destroy the consent option as a side effect of the US - focused 


On Wednesday 07 March 2012 07:25:48 Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> As I read Roy's proposal, it doesn't cover first parties.
> > . . . beyond what is necessary to enable:
> > . . .
> > 2) the first-party (and third-parties acting as the first-party)
> >
> >    to provide the service intentionally requested by the user; 
> >
> > It allows a first-party service (including its outsourced
> > contractors) to perform the service intentionally requested
> > by the user, which may include personalization, analytics,
> > or social networking as appropriate for that service, since
> > otherwise a DNT enabled user would be constantly interrupted
> > by consent dialogs just to do what they had already requested.
> > A first-party might change their service upon receipt of DNT,
> > such as by disabling social networking features, but that is
> > presumed to be governed by the nature of the first-party
> > service and the privacy options configured directly with
> > that first-party.

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 07:46:39 UTC