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

Change proposal for ISSUE-5 ­ Definition of Tracking

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:47:34 -0400
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE7082F6.3A6B7%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
I propose the following change proposal for ISSUE-5 ­ Definition of Tracking
This builds on a definition that was previously submitted by Roy.
³Tracking is the act of following a particular user's browsing activity
across multiple distinct contexts, via the collection or retention of data
that can associate a given request to a particular user, user agent, or
device, and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that
activity outside the context in which it occurred. For the purposes of this
definition, a context is a set of resources that EITHER: a) share the same
owner, data controller and a common branding, such that a user would expect
that data supplied to one of the resources is available to all of the others
within the same context, OR b) enter into contract with other parties
regarding the collection, retention, and use of data, share a common
branding that is easily discoverable by a user, and describe their tracking
practices clearly and conspicuously in a place that is easily discoverable
by the user." 
Rationale: I believe that we have WG consensus that common ownership,
control and branding provides sufficient transparency and privacy controls.
Building on some of David Wainbergıs recent posts, I believe that branding
and contractual provisions provide an equivalent level of transparency and
Iım not sure if this concept should reside in the definition of of tracking,
or if it should sit elsewhere. Iım open to the input of the group.
Alternatively, we can insert this concept into the definition of First Party
or attempt to address data collection by context rather than by party. The
rationale behind the latter is that it reduces likely confusion about who is
a party under each specific use case, and aligns better with user
understanding and expectations about how data will be processed.
As this is an important issue that could be placed in a number of sections
of our specification, Iım opening up a separate issue to help ensure it
doesnıt fall through the cracks.

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 17:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC