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

Re: Editorial Change - ISSUE-25 Proposed Text

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:50:39 -0400
Message-ID: <5254701F.8020404@appnexus.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
CC: Rob Sherman <robsherman@fb.com>, "(public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi John,

On 2013-10-08 3:09 PM, John Simpson wrote:
> Well, if Company.com <http://Company.com> was a 3rd party on 
> Website.com <http://Website.com>, then if DNT:1 were enabled 
> Company.com <http://Company.com> should not have been able to gather 
> any data when I visited Website.com <http://Website.com>, right?
The DNT:1 signal, and any associated rules for data collected in a 3rd 
party context would apply to any data collected by Company.com in that case.
> I'm  not sure I understand how the "concept" of context helps 
> particularly.  I guess you're saying that when you are a 3rd party you 
> are operating in the third party context.  When you become a 1st 
> party, you are operating in the 1st party context.
Or vice versa. When you use or collect data in a 1st party context you 
are operating at that time as a 1st party.
> If we agree that a party can be both a 1st party or a 3rd party -- but 
> not at the same time -- then I don't see any functional difference 
> between saying "you are a 1st party" vs. "you are operating in the 1st 
> party context"
It's more precise and clear. Speaking in terms of context goes right to 
the point. Company X is a party. Is it a first party or a third party? 
We don't know until we see the context in which it is collecting or 
using data at any given moment. So let's just talk about the context, then.

Or, to put it slightly differently, parties can morph between 1st and 
3rd. They can hold data that was collected in either context and they 
can use data in either context. But what matters /is/ that context in 
which the data is collected or used. And the DNT signal carries over 
with the data, even as the party switches contexts. Therefore 1st or 
3rd-ness is really a property of the data, not of the party. And, it 
follows that it's clearer to talk about applying rules to the data 
rather than to parties.
> I just don't understand what's confusing about saying in this network 
> interaction you are a 1st party.  Later you might say, in this 
> interaction (for these reasons) you are a 3rd party.
That's not confusing, but what is confusing is building rule sets around 
the wrong thing. Here's an analogy -- imperfect, but still makes the 
point. It's not confusing to say that people drive cars. However, it 
would be confusing to make a law requiring that people must have 
functioning break lights and a horn at all times.

> On Oct 7, 2013, at 5:43 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com 
> <mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com>> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> The point is that it's confusing to talk about parties, since a party 
>> can be either 1st or 3rd depending on context. If Company.com 
>> <http://Company.com> has content on Website.com <http://Website.com>, 
>> it's a third party in that context. If a user visits Website.com 
>> <http://Website.com> and then later visits Company.com 
>> <http://Company.com> directly, Company.com <http://Company.com> is 
>> then a first party. But what about the data Company.com 
>> <http://Company.com> collected on Website.com <http://Website.com> 
>> when Company.com <http://Company.com> was a third party?
>> The point is that the rules attach based on the context of collection 
>> and use, not on the ephemeral nature of a party. Therefore, that's 
>> how we should describe the rules, else we risk not saying what we 
>> mean, and we risk confusing implementers and users.
>> Does that make sense?
>> -David
>> On 2013-10-07 3:41 PM, John Simpson wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>> I'm having trouble understanding the distinction you are trying to 
>>> make.  Doesn't a 3rd party collect in a 3rd party context?
>>> Could you please explain a little more what you mean?
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>> On Oct 7, 2013, at 8:44 AM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com 
>>> <mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com>> wrote:
>>>> Again, this is a case where talking about audience measurement data 
>>>> collected in a 3rd party context might be clearerthan talking about 
>>>> parties
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 20:51:03 UTC

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