Re: action-307, issue-119, absolutely not tracking

On Nov 7, 2012, at 18:49 , Rigo Wenning <> wrote:

> David, 
> should we link this to Ian Fette's suggestion for 6 weeks retention? 

I assume that would be the short-term raw-log retention period I mention below as possibly being needed.  These are separate yet-related issues.

> This would be linked to Action-266. I think we are solving the same issue 
> here. 
> Rigo
> On Wednesday 07 November 2012 18:35:13 David Singer wrote:
>> (The issue asks for normative text, the action for non-normative, this is
>> non-normative).  We need to tell sites that basically are not in the
>> tracking business what they need to do…
>> There are circumstances in which sites will appear in as third parties in a
>> transaction, but those sites perform little or no tracking. Such sites
>> might include those providing libraries of resources, such as scripts,
>> style-sheets, or images, or sites providing content intended to be 'mashed
>> up' into other sites. Unfortunately, it is not possible to distinguish,
>> among the sites that do not implement Do Not Track, those that track but do
>> not (yet) implement DNT, and sites that do not track.
>> For this reason, it is recommended that these non-tracking sites implement a
>> static well-known resource and/or a static DNT response header, indicating
>> their status. The recommended status is '3' (fully third-party compliant,
>> with no qualifiers and no permissions claimed) or '3s' (third party,
>> claiming only the short-term logging permission).  If logging is performed,
>> then complying with the requirements for short-term logging may be
>> necessary, to be compliant under these specifications.
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 19:05:58 UTC