- From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:54:51 -0700
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I am very close to being able to live with Justin's text, which is: "Tracking" is understood by this standard as the collection and retention of data across multiple parties' domains or services in a form such that it can be attributed to a specific user, user agent, or device. My objection is to how we definitionally claim that first parties do not track. As I have said repeatedly, I find that intellectually dishonest. Certainly it violates users' understanding of tracking as well. However, I readily and cheerfully acknowledge the group is at long-standing view that very, very little is asked of first parties. I would address that in scope rather than definition, which works neatly with the section title. (A) I propose something along these lines: "Tracking" is understood by this standard as the collection and retention of data by domains or services in a form such that it can be attributed to a specific user, user agent, or device. First parties can and do track users under this standard; they need only follow Section 4 in order to comply. This is not meant to be a large change or to change substance. It just turns the definition into something I can read aloud with a straight face. (B) To address concerns Roy has raised in the past, I support (but can live without) text that addresses "of course we don't mean routers." This could look something like: "Tracking" is understood by this standard as the collection and retention of data by domains or services in a form such that it can be attributed to a specific user, user agent, or device, exempting any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network. First parties can and do track users under this standard; they need only follow Section 4 in order to comply. (That additional text should look familiar: Art 5(3).) Something like (A) is important to me, and I will keep objecting until I am blue in the face. In contrast, I think (B) helps avoid confusion in later sections of the specifications and is a generally good addition, but at present I would not object if it were absent. Aleecia /* Do we use the word "standard" here? Perhaps "recommendation" or "texts"? */
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 17:55:12 UTC