Re: ISSUE-10 First party definition, ISSUE-60, ACTION-?


On Thursday 07 March 2013 00:06:27 Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Do you think the third party operating the widget should be elevated
> to first party status? I read the proposal as doing that because
> that's all more interaction than "merely mouses over, closes, or
> mutes" even though it does not meet the "reasonably conclude with
> high probability that the user intends to communicate with"
> definition for what is a first party. What if users learn that these
> kinds of interactions do not in fact take them to another party (or
> more reasonably, have learned that long ago)?

Our culture is coming to a forefront. We both believe that the 
distinction between 1st/3rd parties is not helpful and will create more 
problems than it solves. You gave lots of good examples. 

They decided to exclude "the party I am interacting with" and address 
only the hidden cross-site tracking. The borderline is difficult to 
establish as W3C has done everything to make everything seamless. At 
some point there is an artificial voluntary distinction and that's it. 
And the one is "interact with" meaning "click on". As it covers many 
business models. 

In Global considerations, we are legally barred from making that 
distinction anyway IMHO. But this is a nice discussion we  currently 
have on public-tracking-international. 


Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 11:48:08 UTC