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

Re: ACTION-273: Multiple First Parties

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:06:19 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>
Message-ID: <1606590.ic2bpuGYo7@bluebunny>
Rob and I had a nice discussion. I maintain that "common branding" and "user 
perception" are bad criteria to determine whether a party on a site is a first 
party. Imagine doubleclick now saying: "This lucky ad was brought to you by 
Doubleclick" in their banner. This would fit the criteria. 

On the other hand, I wasn't capable of coming up with something that would 
work (as I don't believe in 1st/3rd party distinction anyway, which is known). 
So while I may disagree, it is the best Rob and I could come up with. Thus no 
objection from my side to go ahead. 


On Wednesday 07 November 2012 16:18:24 Rob Sherman wrote:
> This text reflects proposed text for Section, with a textual
> change that I received and adding language to clarify the status of
> "simple" web plugins.  With this draft, I suggest that the status of
> ACTION-273 be changed to "pending review."
> * * *
> Multiple First Parties
> For many websites, there will be only one party that the average user would
> expect to communicate with: the provider of the website the user has
> visited. But, for other websites, users may expect to communicate with more
> than one party.  In these instances, a party will be deemed a first party
> on a particular website if it concludes that a user would reasonably expect
> to communicate with it using the website.
> URIs, branding, the presence of privacy policies or other disclosures that
> specifically identify a party, and the extent to which a party provides
> meaningful content or functionality on the website, may contribute to, but
> are not necessarily determinative of, user perceptions about whether a
> website is provided by more than one party.
> Example: Example Sports, a well-known sports league, collaborates with
> Example Streaming, a well-known streaming video website, to provide content
> on a sports-themed video streaming website. The website is prominently
> advertised and branded as being provided by both Example Sports and
> ExampleStreaming. An ordinary user who visits the website may recognize
> that it isoperated by both Example Sports and Example Streaming.  Both
> Example Sports and Example Streaming are first parties.
> Example: Example Sports has a dedicated page on a Example Social, a social
> networking website. The page is branded with both Example Sports’ name and
> logo and Example Social’s name and logo.  Both Example Sports’ name and
> Example Social’s names appear in the URI for the page.  When a user visits
> this dedicated page, both Example Sports and Example Social are first
> parties.
> Example:  Example Fan Club operates a sports fan website that posts articles
> about sports teams.  Example Streaming provides an embeddable widget that
> allows the display of a video from a sports game.  Example Fan Club embeds
> this widget at the bottom of one of its articles.  The website does not
> identify Example Streaming in the URI, includes no Example Streaming
> branding, and does not refer to the Example Streaming privacy policy.  The
> only functionality that Example Streaming provides on the website is the
> display of the video through its widget.  Consistent with the standard
> described in section, Example Fan Club is a first party and
> Example Streaming is a third party.
> Rob Sherman
> Facebook | Manager, Privacy and Public Policy
> 1155 F Street, NW Suite 475 | Washington, DC 20004
> office 202.370.5147 | mobile 202.257.3901
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 17:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:13 UTC