FW: change proposals

Hi Nick,

 

Did you seen these proposals I posted on Thursday?

 

I would like them added, or at least the ones about persistent identifiers

 

Mike

 

From: Mike O'Neill [mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com] 
Sent: 20 June 2013 22:21
To: Nicholas Doty
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: change proposals

 

Hi Nick,

 

Here are my change proposals to the TPC June Draft. 

 

Mike

 

 

 

1. Scope

 

Replace the term user-granted exception with user-granted tracking consent
throughout the document.

 

Justification.

 

The word exception has a particular meaning in the context of software
program flow and will be confusing here particularly when JavaScript issues
are discussed. It is also not always an exception to a DNT general
preference because it can be specified when the general preference is unset.

 

2. Definitions

 

In paragraph 5 a new item 3.

 

3. has no independent right to use or share the data.

 

 

Justification.

 

The current wording is too broad especially when applied to data sharing. It
could be read as saying that data could be shared in order for "correct
operation" which could be construed to be for almost any purpose. The
ability to use a third party for security and integrity etc. is already
covered by item 2 "and used as directed by that client". 

This is important because the use of persistent identifiers in first-party
contexts will take over the tracking role from third-party cookies and there
will be pressure for them to be shared to support cross-domain tracking.

 

 

A new set of definitions for persistent identifiers and duration. The term
unique user identifier should be replaced by persistent identifier
throughout the document.

 

A persistent identifier is an arbitrary value held in the User-Agent whose
purpose is to identify the User-Agent in subsequent transactions to a
particular web domain. It may be encoded for example as the name or value
attribute of an HTTP cookie, as an item in localStorage or recorded in some
way in the cache.

 

The duration of a persistent  identifier is the maximum period of time it
will be retained in the User-Agent. This could be implemented for example
using the Expires or Max-Age attributes of an HTTP cookie so that it is
automatically deleted by the User-Agent after the specified time period is
exceeded.

 

Justification.

 

The original name in the TPC was persistent identifier which is a better
term, though it still needs defining. An identifier may not need to be
unique in order for it to be used for tracking, but it would have to be
persistent. We should qualify permitted uses so the duration of any
persistent identifiers is purpose limited.

 

 

 

 

3. User Agent Compliance

 

In paragraph 1 replace  Do Not Track preference with Do Not Track general
preference

 

Justification.

 

This is to differentiate the DNT:0 case which could be optional for a
general preference but required for a site-specific tracking consent
indication i.e. created as a result of calling the API.

 

 

 

 

A new paragraph 3.

 

A user agent MUST have a default tracking preference of unset (not enabled)
unless a specific tracking preference is implied by the decision to use that
agent, or another default preference is needed in order to comply with
applicable laws, regulations and judicial processes.

 

Justification.

 

The original wording in the TPE, allowing the choice of a privacy oriented
user-agent, was better so why lose it, and it is possible that rights-based
jurisdictions like the EU with an assumed right to privacy may require
user-agents be supplied with DNT set by default.

 

 

 

In paragraph 4. Remove MUST ensure that the tracking preference choices
describe the parties to whom DNT applies

 

Justification.

 

This is unclear. If it is about the difference between first and third
parties then it is irrelevant in Europe.

 

 

 

4. First Party Compliance

 

Replace sentence 1 to paragraph 1 with:

 

If a first party receives a DNT:1 signal it may react to it as if it were a
third-party as described in section 5 below, for example in order to comply
with applicable laws, regulations and judicial processes. Otherwise it MAY
engage in its normal collection and use of information. 

 

Remove paragraph 3.

 

Justification.

 

First-parties may be required to follow third-party procedures, or may elect
to off their own bat.

 

5. Third Party Compliance

 

In paragraph 1 in both items 1 and 2 remove and any explicitly-granted
exceptions.

 

Justification.

 

A UGE (or tracking consent) will result in DNT:0 anyway so this does not
apply here.

 

Remove  paragraphs 5 and 7.

 

Justification.

 

No data should be collected when DNT is set unless it is for a permitted
use. If "and otherwise be linked to" ends up being removed from the
definition of de-identified data then this could create a gaping hole in the
standard.

 

 

5.1.2 Data Minimisation, Retention and Transparency

 

New paragraph 4.

 

If persistent identifiers are used then their duration should be limited to
the maximum necessary for such permitted use.

 

Justification.

 

If a permitted use requires a persistent identifier then it does not need to
exist beyond the purpose of the permitted use. For example if it is
necessary to detect unique visitors for frequency capping the duration could
be no more than some number of minutes.

 

 

 

5.2 Permitted Uses

 

Add a new paragraph 5.

 

If a persistent identifier is required for any permitted use, for example in
order to identify a unique visitor for billing or frequency capping
purposes,  the duration of the persistent identifier should be limited to
the maximum necessary  for such permitted use.

 

Justification.

 

Same as above.