Re: ISSUE-5: definition of tracking

There is a real danger in taking a definition used in a spec to far away
from the common meaning of the term, because when you want to use that
term to communicate with an end user you need to make sure they understand
where you have changed the meaning.  It is why we are having trouble with
"track".
-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 9/5/12 3:06 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

>On Sep 5, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
>
>> Do we think that most users would interpret "websites" to mean only 3rd
>> parties or might a reasonable person also think it meant that a 1st
>>party
>> e.g. medical/political/dating/younameit site might not "track" my UID
>> (cookie, IP, whatever) as having visited?
>
>That is why the second half of my message, in
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0009.html
>
>specifically adds "by third parties" to the UA config.
>
>The confusion already exists.  I don't want to require a specific
>user interface, but we do need to have common understanding of the
>meaning so that we can tell when the meaning is not being upheld
>and informed by the user agent.  In HTTP, the semantics of a
>header field are just as critical as the syntax.
>
>....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 20:39:36 UTC