- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:53:55 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Hi all, I see a lot of agreement here. John says we need explicit limits on 1st parties. Dan Auerbach and Chris Pedigo explain that a first party can collect data for the service and their own profile, but can not share and not merge data from the first and third party context they are in. This would achieve the same. But it is not ultimately comprehensive. Spec says: The first party must not pass information about this transaction to non- service provider third parties who could not collect the data themselves under this standard. Remains to find the exact mismatch and concerns: 1/ Industry wants to personalize, sell, deliver in a first party context. If we only want to restrict first party tracking, we have to define tracking as Roy suggests. All other collection would be permitted, also in a third party context. hmmmmmm.... That would change the content of DNT:1 for first and third parties. I would rather not go there and leave as is. 2/ John is concerned that third party tracking hindrance is not sufficient as the first party will just combine pre-existing data from third parties with its own tracking. This is a valid concern. Because we have only the rule that a first party can not share. We do not have the rule that shareable data may not be used in a DNT:1 context by the first party. This is a loophole. I think this is a valid concern that merits discussion. Would this be common practice? 3/ John is concerned that first parties collect too much data. Valid concern, but not object of this effort say all others. The Berlin- discussion has shown that especially friendly first parties, even in unregulated environments, could decide in case of DNT:1 to only do permitted uses even though they are a first party. Question is then how to signal that. For the moment, there is no means, thus a missed opportunity IMHO. --Rigo On Tuesday 19 March 2013 19:19:59 Chris Pedigo wrote: > John, I continue to have many concerns about a “data append” > restriction. Below, I have addressed what I perceive to be two > concerns raised by proponents of a Data Append restriction. But, I > am curious to know if you have additional concerns or comments.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 15:54:27 UTC