- From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:22:50 -0000
- To: "'Justin Brookman'" <jbrookman@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <02d901cefc0d$660a79a0$321f6ce0$@baycloud.com>
Justin, Here are my immediate thoughts on the basis of the chairs’ decision. It is not correct that “the Working Group’s understanding [is] that Do Not Track is not fundamentally intended to limit data collection and use by first parties”. The long standing intention is that DNT should limit the use of collected data by first parties by at least not permitting sharing of it with other parties. My objection was to the ambiguity of Option A which can be read as allowing activity data being collected and retained by any party (i.e. third-parties or first-parties), if it was derived solely from within that context. This immediately requires the definition of not only “contexts” but also the definition of data that has been tainted through its association with other contexts, and this could further delay the process of getting to LC. This problem arises from trying to smuggle a particular compliance interpretation into the definition of tracking. A better way might be to have non-normative text saying that the DNT header (with the UGE API) has been designed to be primarily a cross-domain signalling mechanism which can be overridden by assumed consent in specific situations as described in the relevant compliance document, or by actual consent signalled by other mechanisms. Mike From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org] Sent: 18 December 2013 03:43 To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Chairs' decisions on Calls for Objection on tracking/party definitions (ISSUE-5, ISSUE-10) Hello all, we announced the results of the Calls for Objection on tracking and party definitions on last week's call --- the chairs decided that Option A on both had the least strong objections, and would be added as definitions to both the TPE and TCS. I'm attaching brief explanatory memoranda on both ISSUES that address the group members' substantive objections in some more detail. I don't expect to discuss the merits of these issues on the call tomorrow, though if there are questions about what the decisions mean for the work going forward, feel free to bring them up! Thanks again to all for their contributions and hard work on finalizing the TPE document for last call; I do believe the end is in sight.
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 16:23:29 UTC