- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:32:09 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Aleecia, On Saturday 29 September 2012 22:48:43 Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: > My only question on Justin's text below is about the wording > "communication to a third party" -- that suggests communication > to a first party or a service provider is permissible. I think > the intent is "communication to another party." If so, is that an > acceptable change? Giving something to someone else in general in legal language is "giving it to a third party". This conflicts semantically with the TPC Spec making a distinction between first and third party. I think Justin meant the legal semantics (anyone else). Communication to a service provider under our definition is always permissible as a service provider works under the control of the one using that service. No control, no service provider but independent third party in the sense of the TPC. First party is an interesting option, but that could be part of the permissible uses, if part of the relation to the first party is to give them all the raw data. (which creates a loophole that we don't really address here) Rigo
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 15:32:44 UTC