Re: Issue for discussion on Wed - User Agent Compliance

Thanks Walter. 

Re: 'third-parties' - Good point. I had considered inserting the term
third-party in my proposed language. My rationale for not including it
was: 

a) Any entity who is not a UA is a third party.
B) by calling out third parties, we open the door to a First Party (e.g.,
an advertiser) thinking that they could receive data from a UA for
tracking.


re: Consent. I thought we had settled on 'consent' as the preferred term
for the document. I'm fine with "prior consent of the user" so long as
we're consistent throughout the document.

Alan




On 7/10/13 10:27 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 107//13 4:10 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> Colleagues: Based on feedback from the WG, I offer the following edit to
>> my proposed language.
>> *
>> *
>> *Proposed language:*
>> "A user agent MUST NOT _share_ information related to the network
>> interaction without consent."
>
>I love this sentiment! For the sake of accuracy and consistency I would
>rephrase it as follows:
>
>"A user agent or service provider MUST NOT _share_ information related
>to the network interaction with any third party without prior consent of
>the user."
>
>Rationale:
>Sharing of personal data should not be allowed without consent and is
>not in most industrialised nations, which have EU-like data protection
>frameworks in place.
>
>Regards,
>
> Walter
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 14:43:21 UTC