Re: Multiple First Parties

>> In these instances, a party will be deemed a first party on a 
>> particular website if it concludes that a user would reasonably expect 
>> to communicate with it using the website.

Hi Rob,

This would imply a change of the first party definition, which is 
covered elsewhere in the document. Isn't your scenarion already covered 
with the priniple of meaningful interaction?

tnks::Rob

Rob Sherman schreef op 2012-09-19 22:34:
> *
>  *
> The editors' draft of the compliance spec raises a question about how
> to define the circumstances in which more than one entity operates as
> a first party on a particular website. As drafted, the first option
> leaves more questions than answers because it says that this may
> happen in some circumstances but does not provide any concrete
> guidance on how a party can tell when it is a first party.
>
> I've proposed text below that I hope leaves intact the basic intent
> behind the existing text — including two examples that are already
> there as options — but that elaborates a bit on the examples and
> provides some non-normative guidance about factors that an entity
> might consider in making a judgment whether it qualifies as a first
> party. The thinking is that, although we can't — and should not try
> to — anticipate the specifics every situation in which two entities
> collaborate, it would be helpful to provide some guidance in the text
> to people who are not in the Working Group and who may not have the
> context for situations that this section envisions.
>
> Feedback on this text would, of course, be appreciated.
>
> Rob
>
> # # #
>
> 3.5.1.2.2 MULTIPLE FIRST PARTIES
>
> _<NORMATIVE>_
>
> For many websites, there will be only one party that the average user
> would expect to communicate with: the provider of the website the 
> user
> has visited. But, for other websites, users may expect to communicate
> with more than one party. In these instances, a party will be deemed 
> a
> first party on a particular website if it concludes that a user would
> reasonably expect to communicate with it using the website.
>
> _<NON-NORMATIVE>_
>
> URIs, branding, the presence of privacy policies or other disclosures
> that specifically identify a party, and the extent to which a party
> provides meaningful content or functionality on the website, may
> contribute to, but are not necessarily determinative of, user
> perceptions about whether a website is provided by more than one
> party.
>
> _Example: _Example Sports, a well-known sports league, collaborates
> with Example Streaming, a well-known streaming video website, to
> provide content on a sports-themed video streaming website. The
> website is prominently advertised and branded as being provided by
> both Example Sports and ExampleStreaming. An ordinary user who visits
> the website may recognize that it isoperated by both Example Sports
> and Example Streaming. Both Example Sports and Example Streaming are
> first parties.
>
> _Example:_ Example Sports has a dedicated page on a Example Social, a
> social networking website. The page is branded with both Example
> Sports’ name and logo and Example Social’s name and logo. Both
> Example Sports’ name and Example Social’s names appear in the URI
> for the page. When a user visits this dedicated page, both Example
> Sports and Example Social are first parties.
>
> Rob Sherman
>
>  FACEBOOK | MANAGER, PRIVACY AND PUBLIC POLICY
>
>  1155 F Street, NW Suite 475 | Washington, DC 20004
>
>  office 202.370.5147 | mobile 202.257.3901

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 05:42:05 UTC