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

RE: Action 368 - Definition of Service Provider/Data Processor

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:52:02 +0000
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>, "Tracking Protection Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E31402BC34@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>
Roy,

I would prefer we continue to use Service Provider for the following reasons:

- any term we use here will likely be imperfect from an individual term representation perspective (for example, Service Provider is easily seen as "one who provides service" but doesn't naturally lend itself to suggesting this is meant "on the behalf of another")
- Data Processor is a legal term of art in the EU and I believe there is considerable confusion in reusing a term that may be interpreted as importing its legal entanglements
- Vendor has a more natural equation between the definitional term it represents and our probably use but Service Providers have been unhappy with "Vendor" as they feel it equates them to a consumer packaged good purchasable in your local grocery store :-).  Service Provider somehow conveys a differentiated level of "value add" beyond a shrink wrapped product.
- Contractor has ambiguous roots in that this is often used to refer to a human (i.e., "they're a contractor for Company XYZ" or "we hired a contractor to build our pool")
- Agent (or concept of "agency") is also a legal term of art in the US and carries the misperception in our context that an agent can take on legal liability for the party it represents.

I know it has its own issues, but "Service Provider" seems to be the cleanest path forward at this point.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:16 AM
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Chris Pedigo; Tracking Protection Working Group; Peter Swire
Subject: Re: Action 368 - Definition of Service Provider/Data Processor

On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> I have been trying to get back to this discussion since I was 
> unavailable the week it came up ... but to no avail so far.
> We should stop using the term service provider because it is so 
> obviously confusing and use either "data controller"
> or "contractor" instead.

Er, I meant use "data processor" or "contractor". *sigh*

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 18:54:06 UTC

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