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

RE: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:20:14 -0000
To: <ifette@google.com>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01fc01cdbf24$97de5270$c79af750$@baycloud.com>


Redirections are invisible to users so we cannot give the parties that host them carte blanche to ignore DNT. The 1st party/ 3rd party distinction is starting to make this whole process look ridiculous.




From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [mailto:ifette@google.com] 
Sent: 09 November 2012 21:07
To: Aleecia M. McDonald
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up


Aleecia, there was proposed text as an alternative to ISSUE-97/ACTION/196. See my work on ACTION-303 and proposals on that thread. http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/303


In particular, I am not satisfied with redirects being treated as third parties and would object to that concept.




On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:

Here are places we might have straight-forward decisions. If there are no responses within a week (that is, by Friday 16 November,) we will adopt the proposals below.

For issue-97 (Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind of tracking is this?)  with action-196, we have text with no counter proposal. Unless someone volunteers to take an action to write opposing text, we will close this with the action-196 text.
        PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-196, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0106.html

For issue-60 (Will a recipient know if it itself is a 1st or 3rd party?) we had a meeting of the minds (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Apr/0129.html) but did not close the issue. We have support for 3.5.2 Option 2, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-first-third-parties-opt-2, with one of the authors of 3.5.1 Option 1, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-first-third-parties-opt-2 accepting Option 2. There was no sustained objection against Option 2 at that time. Let us find out if there is remaining disagreement.
        PROPOSED: We adopt 3.5.2 Option 2, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-first-third-parties-opt-2

For action-306, we have a proposed definition with accompanying non-normative examples
        PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-306 to define declared data, to be added to the definitions in the Compliance document, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0296.html
        PROPOSED: We look for volunteers to take an action to write text explaining when and how declared data is relevant (See the note in, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party-data) to address issue-64


Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 09:21:11 UTC

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