RE: Multiple First Parties

Having the same TOS should not be a requirement but having access to both party's TOS should be ("easily discoverable").

- Shane

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 5:43 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Vinay Goel; Rob Sherman; Chris Pedigo; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties

Shane:  Can you clarify.  The sites that would be treated as twin first parties would each have the same ToS?   No different data practices, third party data partners, different data deliver?  In the case of Yahoo and AT&T, is the case the same ToS and data use with affiliates, etc?

Thanks,

Jeff
Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org>
www.digitalads.org<http://www.digitalads.org>
202-986-2220

On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:


Yahoo! has a few examples of multiple first party "sites" - AT&T is one of those.

We require the following elements for a site to be "multi first party":

- Clear branding for both parties in the header
- Shared Terms of Service (or links to both with a description of the multi-first party situation)
- Links to both Privacy Policies with a description of the multi-first party situation

I believe this carries the necessary elements for users to see/understand who is involved in data collection and use on the site.

- Shane

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Vinay Goel
Cc: Rob Sherman; Chris Pedigo; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties

That is very interesting.   How would a user know the different data collection practices run by the parties, and its implications?  What does ATT.net<http://ATT.net> do with the data versus Yahoo?  What is shared and used by both parties internally and operationalized?  Or shared with third parties, used by ad exchanges, etc.

This is a good example to fully flesh out the data practices on co-branded sites to understand what it means for privacy under the DNT frame.  I hope you and colleagues to build on this so we have a living example to consider.

Thanks,

Jeff


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org>
www.digitalads.org<http://www.digitalads.org>
202-986-2220

On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Vinay Goel wrote:



Hi Jeff,

Here's one example: http://att.yahoo.com<http://att.yahoo.com/>

-Vinay

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:33 AM
To: Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com<mailto:robsherman@fb.com>>
Cc: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org<mailto:CPedigo@online-publishers.org>>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org<mailto:justin@cdt.org>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:34 AM

Rob:  Thanks for all this.  Can you give us a real world example of a co-run site?   What are the models we can examine to help us better understand the implications for users?

Regards,

Jeff


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
www.digitalads.org<http://www.digitalads.org/>
202-986-2220

On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:01 AM, Rob Sherman wrote:



Thanks very much for all of this feedback.  As I understand it, the group
generally agrees that the party responsible for a website that a user
visits is a first party on that website.  Text in the existing draft
acknowledges that, in some circumstances, there may be more than one party
responsible.  The point of my proposal is to provide context around that
concept so that parties have some guidance in the spec about how to
determine whether they fall into this category.  Currently, we simply say
that it may sometimes happen and leave it at that.  The Example Sports on
Example Social example - which comes from Jonathan and Tom's text - is an
attempt to illustrate the point, and what I've tried to do is to elaborate
a bit on what it is about Example Sports and Example Social that make them
both first parties in that instance.

I agree with Mike that the meaningful interaction standard doesn't apply
here.  To be clear, we're talking about two distinct situations:  (1) a
basic third party, such as a "share" button, which is a third party but
becomes a first party when the user interacts with it; and (2) a single
website that is operated by two first parties operating together.  In that
second scenario, just as we agree that a user intends to interact with the
entity responsible for a website when he/she browses to that website, it
seems reasonable to draw the same conclusion when there are two entities
responsible.  This should not implicate Jeff's concern about giving
parties a "free pass" on DNT because, although I think branding is an
important way to ensure that consumers understand who is responsible for a
website, nobody is suggesting that putting a logo on a website, without
more, gives a party license to ignore DNT.

My goal here is simply to describe the concept of multiple first parties,
which has been in the draft for some time and is a concept that I think
most people in the TPWG understand, in a way that helps parties who have
not been a part of our discussions implement the spec in a way that is
consistent with what we envision.


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





On 9/20/12 7:08 AM, "Chris Pedigo" <CPedigo@online-publishers.org<mailto:CPedigo@online-publishers.org>> wrote:



Rob, thanks for this clarifying language.  I believe it reflects the
group's previous decisions on first parties and provides some useful
guidance for implementers.

Justin, I don't see how this would be an expansion.  Can you clarify?

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Brookman [mailto:justin@cdt.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:01 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Multiple First Parties

The existing language already allows for multiple first parties despite
no meaningful interaction.  Rob (Sherman) is arguing for an expansion.
I have previously argued against multiple first parties, but I do not
believe many agreed with me.  The Example Sports on Example Social is an
interesting example that may be consistent with Jonathan's original
formulation (he and Tom drafted the original language), though I still
think we need more to be clear that mere branding and disclosure are not
sufficient.

Justin Brookman
Director, Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
tel 202.407.8812
fax 202.637.0969
justin@cdt.org<mailto:justin@cdt.org>
http://www.cdt.org<http://www.cdt.org/>
@CenDemTech
@JustinBrookman

On 9/20/2012 9:52 AM, Jeffrey Chester wrote:
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<mailto: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