RE: ACTION-258: Propose 'should' for same-party and why

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:01 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Currently IE takes the performance hit of loading hundreds of trackers
> and even wait for an entire ad - auction to happen and it can't load TSR
> or look at the DNT response headers? So all performance hit for tracking
> is ok, but no performance hit for Privacy is ok? MS can't claim privacy
> championship with the above argumentation.

Downloading a TSR itself provides no extra privacy. And we're not talking
about a single download. You would have to download the TSR for almost
every origin, which you suggest would be hundreds of extra downloads. And
how would you possibly display information from these hundred downloads,
especially in a browser that has no visible UI most of the time?

> By avoiding a cornerstone of the legal concept behind DNT, you implement
> something, but I would really question whether you could call that W3C
> Tracking Preference Expression.

The browser conveys the preference; it expresses a preference about
tracking, if you like. Hence Tracking Preference Expression.  Sites either
respect the preference or they don't.

> MS' implementation will break the legal concept behind the TPE. I send a
> service a DNT:1 header and I'm not able to see/read/understand the
> response. Go to the shop and shout "I want ice" and pay $2. They respond
> "no". You can't hear that because your browser is deaf. You continue to
> shout "ice" and pay $2 despite getting nothing back.
> I know you will make the argument that a service would respond to the
> DPA's browser. But legally it doesn't hold:
[snip]
> Without meaningful TPE/TCS we will go further down the blocking tools.
> The transparency MS refuses to implement is key to the building of trust
> that the market place needs. So please re-consider.

The definition we've been using for Party is:

"A party is any commercial, nonprofit, or governmental organization, a
subsidiary or unit of such an organization, or a person. For unique
corporate entities to qualify as a common party with respect to this
document,those entities MUST be commonly owned and commonly controlled
and MUST provide easy discoverability of affiliate organizations. A list
of affiliates MUST be provided within one click from each page or the
entity owner clearly identified within one click from each page."

This notion of discoverable ownership is one that we've been using for
a while.

If the market demands more explicit communication of same party
then those who wish to respond to this demand MAY provide the information.
If the market demands that browsers provide more information then they
MAY also provide it.

The purpose of this group is to make it possible for people to express
their preference and for sites to receive and understand the preference
and to behave appropriately. We do not need to mandate the way in which
people consume the information made available to them from sites.

Organisations must be allowed to compete on privacy.

Cheers,

Adrian.

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 14:52:16 UTC