Re: June Change Proposal: Definition of Tracking (ISSUE-5)

The definition in the DAA text is "Tracking is the collection and retention
, or use, after a network interaction is complete, of data records that
are, or can be, associated with of activity across non-affiliated websites
linked to a specific user, user agent computer, or device."

I don't see anything in that definition that limits it to "IDs + URLs".
It seems to cover "data records that are, or can be, associated with
activity ..."


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> This definition is too broad and therefore not likely to be implemented.
>  If we instead focus on tracking as being the association of a unique ID
> (any source - including digital fingerprints) with web activity (URLs)
> across non-affiliated sites - we have a foundation upon which we can build
> a lasting DNT standard (and one that will be implemented and advanced user
> privacy in a real way).
>
> Could you please provide examples where you feel the industry definition
> is too narrow (IDs + URLs)?  This appears to hit right at the very heart of
> the concept of "online tracking" and hopefully builds a definition by which
> our activities can be appropriately focused.
>
> Please keep in mind the technical side of the specification is so easy to
> game that we should expect rates exceeding 50% to 80% of DNT:1.
>
> - Shane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 6:21 AM
> To: Alan Chapell
> Cc: David Singer; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: June Change Proposal: Definition of Tracking (ISSUE-5)
>
>
> Just to let you know that the DPAs specifically ruled out fingerprinting
> as an alternative for cookie based tracking in the Berlin Group opinion on
> Web Tracking and Privacy.
>
> Keeping a definition technology neutral is fine with me. Wishing
> fingerprinting is off the radar for DPAs is not a preferred move. It would
> be wise to include fingerprinting specifically in non-normative text, if a
> definition has to be part of the standard.
>
>
> I am proposing a new tracking defintion and non-normative text:
>
> Tracking is any form of collection, retention, use and/or application of
> data that are, or can be, associated with a specific user, user agent, or
> device.
>
> Non normative explanation: Tracking is not exclusively connected to unique
> ID cookies. Tracking includes automated real time decisions, intended to
> analyse or predict the personality or certain personal aspects relating to
> a natural person, including the analysis and prediction of the person’s
> health, economic situation, information on political or philosophical
> beliefs , performance at work, leisure, personal preferences or interests,
> details and patterns on behavior, detailed location or movements. Tracking
> is defined in a technological neutral way and includes e.g. cookie based
> tracking technology, active and passive fingerprinting techniques.
>
>
> Rob
>
> Alan Chapell schreef op 2013-07-09 14:42:
> > Well put, David. I'm not sure we want to call out digital
> > fingerprinting specifically - technology neutral is best.
> >
> >
> > On 7/9/13 8:04 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 9, 2013, at 12:33 , Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>> well, the fingerprint is used as a key to some data storageŠ
> >>>>> What if it isn't?  What if a website collects a fingerprint and
> >>>>> then discards it?  Surely that should still be prohibited.
> >>>> So, during the transaction, the server calculates a fingerprint
> >>>> that's plausibly unique to the user, and then when the transaction
> >>>> is complete, it discards the fingerprint.  It can't now have
> >>>> anything retained that's keyed to that fingerprint, and it can't
> >>>> know if the same user visits again (fingerprint match).  I don't
> >>>> see the point, but I don't see a problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Fingerprints do in may cases end up in data sets as matching
> >>> identifiers.
> >>
> >> Then data is being retained.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Even if a fingerprint is discarded, it can facilitate the linking of
> >>> new data to already collected data.
> >>
> >> how?  if I discard the fingerprint (it's not recorded anywhere)Š
> >>
> >>> Therefore, fingerprinting is important to address when DNT:1.
> >>>
> >>> DNT:1 must cover fingerprinting based tracking equal to cookie based
> >>> tracking.
> >>
> >> DNT should cover *tracking*, and we might have comments or notes on
> >> what constitutes tracking, retention, etc., but I think it very
> >> dangerous to talk of specific technologies in the normative text.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> David Singer schreef op 2013-07-09 13:05:
> >>>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 20:46 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> that could usefully be made clear (that storing information in a
> >>>>>> cookie that later should come back to you is still 'retaining'.
> >>>>> I'd prefer to focus on privacy properties, not particular
> >>>>> technical implementations.  My concern is not the use of browser
> >>>>> storage.
> >>>>> It's
> >>>>> the information flow from the browser to the website.
> >>>> Sure, my focus is on what information is retained in the sense it
> >>>> is usable by the site(s) after the transaction is over.  Where it
> >>>> is (local, cloud, client, service provider, etc.) are irrelevant.
> >>>>>>> (And what about fingerprinting, where there is no client-side
> >>>>>>> information stored?)
> >>>>>> well, the fingerprint is used as a key to some data storageŠ
> >>>>> What if it isn't?  What if a website collects a fingerprint and
> >>>>> then discards it?  Surely that should still be prohibited.
> >>>> So, during the transaction, the server calculates a fingerprint
> >>>> that's plausibly unique to the user, and then when the transaction
> >>>> is complete, it discards the fingerprint.  It can't now have
> >>>> anything retained that's keyed to that fingerprint, and it can't
> >>>> know if the same user visits again (fingerprint match).  I don't
> >>>> see the point, but I don't see a problem.
> >>>>>>> At any rate, I'm inclined to hold this (constructive!)
> >>>>>>> conversation until we decide a) to have a definition of
> >>>>>>> "tracking" and b) to make that definition normative.
> >>>>>> The june document has such, so we should make sure it's
> >>>>>> watertight.
> >>>>>> that's why I am pressing for specifics. yes, it's helpful.
> >>>>> The June draft definition is de jure normative, but de facto
> >>>>> non-normative since it isn't used anywhere.
> >>>> Indeed, I have CPs to make it used.  It's used by implication but
> >>>> not by the text.
> >>>> David Singer
> >>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >>
> >> David Singer
> >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Edward W. Felten
Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs
Director, Center for Information Technology Policy
Princeton University
609-258-5906           http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten