Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

It would do justice to the user, to define context in a user centric
way. A context := the result of user control, after having been enabled
to make an informed choice about the collection and processing of
linkable (unique) identifiers for purposes other than security/fraud
prevention or network management.

An interpretation of context should not be left up to common sense. Due
to the dependency of Option A "Tracking across multiple distinct
contexts" with user activity, it needs to be defined.

User activity is the result of enabling the user to make an informed
choice about context. Context has everything to do with the purpose of
the collection/sharing/retention of the data by parties and service
providers. Leaving context open to interpretation would be a classic
example of kicking the can down the road.

The following example is no edge case. How would the suggested
definition deal with the 3rd party weather widget? Does the weather
widget belong tho the set of resources, even if it used the same
persistent identifier on all sites the weather widget appears? Even when
no meaningful interaction has taken place with the weather widget?

A definition of context should work for the weather widget, but also for
the more complicated examples like OBA, audience measurement or
re-targeting. Some of these reflect the third party paradox, that David
pointed out in his response.

My point is, we do not know how an individual user's choice would be
when presented with the weather widget on a given site. A user centric
design of DNT should allow for context negotiation, not restraining the
contextual boundaries. The proposed definition is the opposite of a user
centric approach.

When the user is presented with UGE request, the outcome, whether the
exception was granted or not, contributes to what the context is.
Similarly, when the user interacts meaningfully with the weather widget,
the context becomes more clear. The context is fluid and subjective to
the user.




On 18-12-2013 19:37, Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> For the purpose of this definition, a context is a set of resources that share the same data controller, same privacy policy, and a common branding, such that a user would expect that data collected by one of those resources is available to all other resources within the same context

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 20:32:57 UTC