- From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:21:34 +0100
- To: "'David Wainberg'" <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Cc: "'Rob Sherman'" <robsherman@fb.com>, "'Walter van Holst'" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
David, They are not "required", the spec says they are allowed if there is no reasonable alternative. I already posted a way to do unique visitor detection without unique ids. Mike -----Original Message----- From: David Wainberg [mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com] Sent: 04 October 2013 13:54 To: Mike O'Neill Cc: 'Rob Sherman'; 'Walter van Holst'; public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-219 (Context separation): 3rd parties that are 1st parties must not use data across these contexts [Compliance Current] Mike, On 2013-10-03 11:11 AM, Mike O'Neill wrote: > Rob, > > The problem is not customisation per se but relying on the use of > persistent unique ids to do it. If you do not track you do not need > unique ids - you can still customise with low entropy cookies i.e. ("I > prefer green like buttons", "My preferred language is German"). Using > unique ids also lets you collect web activity. If someone has DNT set > and you do not have a permitted use you do not need to store or use (or derive) unique ids. I'm glad you agree that customization itself is not the issue. I don't think it's feasible to not have unique IDs, especially since they are required for the permitted uses. Best, David
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 13:22:12 UTC