Re: Consolidated Proposal for Definition of Collect

Walter,

I agree these are compliance issues but they seem to now be tied to
definitions we've moved to the new 3.5, "TePliance" doc.

To be clear, I am not trying to completely remove a first party's
responsibility for what they induce, facilitate or whatever the word, but
"share" (and relatedly collect) are the wrong words!  You could have a
hypothetical site which has no forms and all logging turned off and no 3rd
party service providers (in my mind zero collection) meet a definition of
collecting simply by including social media icons.

We may or may not have strong agreement on facilitator responsibilities,
but I do hear a common refrain that we must bring more definitions into a
TPE if that TPE is meant to apply to a single compliance doc.  IMHO for
either a poll 3 or 4 approach to work the TPE must be written in such a
way that it can stand on its own.  Right now it appears we are struggling
with the 2 potential ways of achieving this:
1) piecemeal moving a compliance doc into the TPE, TePliance - which in
fairness is NOT option 3.5 but rather a renamed option 1, or
2) writing the TPE in a way that it doesn't assume anything from the
compliance doc but is written generally to allow for multiple compliance
standards, including one which may come from this group.



-Brooks


-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 11/1/13 6:09 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 01/11/2013 11:02, David Singer wrote:
>> OK, maybe a concrete question.  If I (a first party) write a page
>> that pulls in a third-party resource, this causes clients who visit
>> my page also to contact that third party.  Lee is saying that that
>> constitutes "sharing" by the first party, even though the transaction
>> from client to third party never came actually "through" the first
>> party.  It's sort of an inducement, or the like.
>> 
>> Do we need to define this?  Is it really 'share', and an inducement
>> to share?  Anyway, the first party will not re-write pages for DNT
>> users, I doubt.
>
>It reeks more of induced collection than of sharing. For all intents and
>purposes, the third party does not receive the data through the first
>party, but directly from the UA.
>
>It is more a matter for a compliance spec to attach consequences to this
>than for the TPE.
>
>Regards,
>
> Walter
>
>

Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 14:26:27 UTC