On 9/13/12 4:48 PM, David Singer wrote: > On Sep 13, 2012, at 13:08 , "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> This is (one of) the items that continues to confuse me about the "no tracking" claim -- aren't all of these examples that David Singer cites below (including the original example of http://duckduckgo.com/) first parties? In which case, having a first party say that they don't make use of the permitted uses that apply only to third parties makes little sense. And I cannot imagine a scenario in which a third party would respond that they weren't making use of permitted use exceptions -- they simply wouldn't be present on the site at all. > Let's try some examples: > > First parties that can say "we don't do tracking" -- general purpose sites, sites hosted by providers that only provide aggregate statistics, 'small' sites (think of high schools) > > Third parties that can say "we don't do tracking" -- sites providing web resources like web badges, style sheets, and script libraries > > These sites don't use anything a first party is allowed to do, let alone what a third party is allowed to do when it claims permissions, or gets an exception. First-party sites that are 'non-tracking' can safely be embedded (if they allow it) in frames in other sites, for example (whereupon they now stand in a 3rd party position). > > These is where I get confused. Are we talking about data collection or use? Do you mean those sites would say they collect no data whatsoever? Or would they be saying they may collect /some/ data but do not engage in the permitted uses?
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 23:43:01 UTC