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

Re: Change Proposals: Issue 10

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:07:50 -0400
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE79EBCE.3AD36%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Jeff  I'll put together another use case later today or tomorrow.

Issue 10 isn't designed to address the service provider use case. If you
disagree with that, please let me know and cite some examples.

My sense is --we already have definitions for service providers and while I
don't have knowledge of all the companies you cite below, I would imagine
that some of them consider themselves service providers in at least part of
their businesses. 


Alan Chapell

From:  Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date:  Tuesday, October 8, 2013 4:52 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Change Proposals: Issue 10
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:52:52 +0000

> Alan:
> Can you provide use cases?  Are Bluekai and Rubicon (or Admob or Acxiom)
> common parties if they are service providers?  I don't understand what is
> being proposed.
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org>
> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org>
> 202-986-2220
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> Proposal: Party definition Make affiliate list an example; add ownership OR
>> contract as ways to reach "common party" status
>> This builds upon a previous Proposal from Amy Colando
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0370.html>  and
>> Proposal from Chris Pedigo
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0390.html>  and
>> is in response to a suggestion from Justin Brookman as we look for the best
>> home for this concept.
>> This is a replacement for last few sentences in section 2.4 Party
>> New text
>> For unique corporate entities to qualify as a common party with respect to
>> this document, those entities MUST be EITHER: commonly owned and commonly
>> controlled OR 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.
>> Regardless, parties MUST provide transparency about what types of entities
>> are considered part of the same party. Examples of ways to provide this
>> transparency are through common branding or by providing a list of affiliates
>> that is available via a link from a resource where a party describes DNT
>> practices.
>> Rationale
>> Strong contractual provisions and branding provide a level of privacy
>> protections for consumers that is at least as good as Common ownership and
>> branding.
>> Alan Chapell
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 21:08:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:00 UTC