compliance section 2: scope & goals

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