- From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:52:03 -0400
- To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>
- Cc: "<rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I also agree that the meaningful interaction standard should apply. Just because a site may have a syndicated presence on a first part page shouldn't give it a free pass. Sites could engage in co-branding to wipe out DNT safeguards. On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Mike Zaneis wrote: > Rob, > > I don't think the meaningful interaction standard covers what is being presented here. Meaningful interaction contemplates a user action after they visit the site. What the examples Rob Sherman provides show is a clear understanding by the user that there are multiple first parties upon landing on a particular page (am I getting that right Rob Sherman?). > > I think this is a vitally important distinction for us to make since the Internet is evolving to provide more examples of this dual content/owner page. It just needs to be clear to the user that there are multiple first parties and providing some factors of indicia in the standard would be helpful. > > Mike Zaneis > SVP & General Counsel, IAB > (202) 253-1466 > > On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:42 AM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com> wrote: > >>>> 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 13:52:54 UTC