- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:47:01 -0700
- To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org List" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jul 3, 2013, at 13:05 , "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote: > David, > > The problem here is that the spec never addresses site specific limitation > of tracking. It has offered a framework for site specific allowance, but > as this is not a requirement (and we've seen no implementations), it > certainly doesn't deserve to be in the 1st sentence of Scope (a place for > MUSTs than MAYs). The scope sets the stage; it comes before we even define terms, so it can't use defined terms, alas. > > With respect to the sites you intended to visit language, what's the > problem with just saying there are different requirements for 1st and 3rd > parties? We have not yet defined those terms at this point… > We use 1st and 3rd party to delineate obligations; why not be > consistent? IMHO the term site or site you didn't intend to visit creates > confusion. OK. "Other sites are involved in the user's online experience?" > > -Brooks > > > > -- > > Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the > Wunderman Network > (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com > brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com > > > > This email including attachments may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, > do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender > immediately and delete the message. > > > > On 7/3/13 2:47 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi Brooks >> >> I certainly don't mind improving the introduction. It was a weak >> push-back at best… >> >> Amy's suggestion "to allow or limit online third party tracking" had the >> problem that it implied only 3rd parties are affected. >> >> We felt that yours was editorially quite a bit harder to read than the >> existing succinct statement, and at this point in the document, a general >> succinct statement, that is then amplified and made more specific by the >> rest of the document, was best. >> >> you wrote: >> >> Do Not Track is designed to provide users with a simple preference >> mechanism to limit online tracking relative to the collector being a 1st >> or 3rd party to the user. Do Not Track further lays the groundwork for >> how a user may express the allowance of tracking either globally or >> selectively. >> >> perhaps something like: >> >> Do Not Track is designed to provide users with a simple preference >> mechanism to limit online tracking, both globally (for all sites) and >> selectively (for specific sites). There are requirements for sites, and >> those requirements differ between sites that the user intended to visit, >> and other sites. >> >> >> On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:55 , "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> There is nothing in the language that suggests that there are no >>> requirements on 1st parties. It is completely syntactically neutral and >>> one could as easily conclude that there are no obligations on 3rd >>> parities >>> as no obligations on 1st parties. As a factual matter, the spec does >>> create very different compliance obligations on 1st parties and 3rd >>> parties. This distinction is fundamental and is worthy of introduction >>> early in the document. If you (or others) feel that my proposed >>> language >>> implies no compliance obligations on 1st parties, please feel free to >>> make >>> a suggestion. Alternatively, if you don't see a fundamental distinction >>> on 1st and 3rd party requirements, please make a convincing argument >>> and I >>> can remove the language. I can't fix what I don't see. >>> >>> Now what was not implied, but rather expressed directly by the original >>> language, was that the spec saw obligations around the offering of a >>> preference mechanism to allow or deny tracking equally. As no where in >>> the spec is there a requirement for a mechanism to "allow" tracking, >>> this >>> is indeed misleading, and I have tried to fix the language. >>> >>> Let's get the first sentence right. It would seem such a good start. >>> >>> -Brooks >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the >>> Wunderman Network >>> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com >>> brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com >>> >>> >>> >>> This email including attachments may contain confidential >>> information. >>> If you are not the intended recipient, >>> do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender >>> immediately and delete the message. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/2/13 8:13 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Scope >>>> >>>> Problem: >>>> >>>> The scope sentence sets the general scope of the specification, and the >>>> proposed alternatives imply no rules for anything other than 3rd >>>> parties, >>>> which is misleading. >>>> >>>> Solution: >>>> >>>> no change. we think the current sentence sets the general scope well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Question: >>>> >>>> do we need formal 'no change' proposals for everything, or (if we fail >>>> to >>>> agree on a proposal) is that always implicitly there? >>>> >>>> >>>> David Singer >>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> David Singer >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 21:47:30 UTC