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

JC, 

as you can imagine, I'm with Roy here as the consent mechanism is important.

Rigo

On Wednesday 07 March 2012 12:50:11 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, JC Cannon wrote:
> > If the statement only applies to third parties it should be so stated. I
> > just want to avoid confusion.
> I fully intend the definition of tracking to apply to all parties,
> because that is how a user would interpret the term.  It enables
> a first-party site to say to the user "I am tracking you on this site
> but it is limited to this context and the data is not shared with
> third-parties except as limited by outsourcing."
> 
> Such a statement can be the basis for prior, specific, and informed
> consent, which is what the EU regulators require of all parties performing
> tracking (not just third-parties).  It is also consistent with the
> option as defined in current browsers.  And it allows for transparency
> in the tracking status response.
> 
> The exemption for first party sites is defined by the clauses for
> "Do Not Track", since that can be defined in a specific way that
> acknowledges that the user has requested a service from the
> first-party and that service is allowed to perform tracking,
> which is reflected in the tracking status resource.
> 
> I categorically reject that any informed consent is possible without
> a definition of tracking.  I can live with a standard that only covers
> third-party tracking if that is the scope we all agree to address,
> but I had the exact opposite reaction from my last proposal.
> 
> ....Roy

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:10:36 UTC