W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6

From: Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:45:22 +0000
To: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
CC: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, "Justin Brookman" <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DEE55CE1-777D-4C84-AEA1-F762B4590425@fb.com>

I think it would be hard to conclude that Facebook.com<http://Facebook.com> is not a third party, given that Facebook is named in the URL, is branded on the page, users have logged into a Facebook account (and agree to Facebook's TOS) in order to access it, the Facebook privacy policy is listed there and applies to data collection on the page, Facebook has developed and operates the software that displays the page, and Facebook runs the servers. I am hard pressed to believe that a user who navigates to Facebook.com<http://Facebook.com> (or Facebook.com/Macys<http://Facebook.com/Macys>) does not believe that they are communicating with Facebook.

Lauren may be right that it is better to migrate to a non-Facebook example, in part because Facebook's relationship with users makes this a clearer argument (at least in my view) than Etsy or Github.

In those cases, it seems most intuitive that when I go to Github.com/Lauren<http://Github.com/Lauren> I expect to be communicating with both Github and Lauren (if it is obvious she controls that space -- even if Github also controls a portion of it, provides content and functionality, etc.). And I would expect Lauren to be able to see what I write on her page.

On John's point -- I should clarify that in the Macy's example my view is that Macy's would be a first party only on Facebook.com/Macys<http://Facebook.com/Macys> and subsidiary pages, where obviously it needs to be able to see what people write on its pages, etc. -- meaning that it would be a third party if it were allowed to collect data elsewhere. I did not mean to suggest that everyone who has a page on Facebook is a first party everywhere on Facebook.com<http://Facebook.com>. That result does not seem intuitive to me.

Hope this helps -- and I look forward to talking more today.


On Mar 6, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>> wrote:

JC, interesting observation. Let me coin another view. Can FB be considered a first party, taking into account it is all about Macy's in this context.


JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com<mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I feel that is a different issue. Can Macy’s be considered a first party even though they are hosted on FB?


From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:33 PM
To: JC Cannon
Cc: Lauren Gelman; Rob Sherman; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6

Isn't the issue whether Facebook could share all of the data it has gathered elsewhere on the Facebook  platform with Macy's?

On Mar 5, 2013, at 4:24 PM, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com<mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com>> wrote:

Is it people’s opinion that if I go to a vendor page on FB such as https://www.facebook.com/Macys, the user’s interaction with the page should be treated as third party? As a consumer that would not seem practical to me. I would feel that I’m interacting with Macy’s. If I left a message I would hope that the people at Macy’s could retrieve it. Am I missing something?

Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 14:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC