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

Re: Poll text call: final text by 28 September

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>
Message-ID: <5599493.qFV1hvKdEr@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

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)

Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 15:32:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:58 UTC