- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:49:46 +0200
- To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker schreef op 2012-10-24 19:07: > tracking-ISSUE-184 (Walter van Holst): 3rd party dependencies in 1st > party content [Tracking Definitions and Compliance] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/184 > > Raised by: Walter van Holst > On product: Tracking Definitions and Compliance > > As anyone that plays around with ad blockers, selective javascript > tools, cookie killers and assorted privacy-enhancing browser > extensions can attest there is a steady increase of content provided > by what under the current text would be a 1st party that cannot be > viewed unless content from a 3rd party is also accepted by the UA, be > it cookies or javascript. > > This raises an interesting situation if we have DNT. For example we > have a 1st party that is trusted by the user and also claims to > comply > to DNT and a 3rd party that is neither. Since the 1st party content > is > technically dependent on 3rd party content, the user has the choice > between either granting consent to the 3rd party in order to have the > 1st party function properly or not getting the content at all. > > To what extent is such consent informed, genuine and meaningful? I would like to add the question the element of free (i.e. freely given): to what extent is such consent freely given. (Recital 17 (2002/58/EC): Consent may be given by any appropriate method enabling a freely given, specific and informed indication of the user’s whishes.)
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:50:15 UTC