- 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