- From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:11:06 +0100
- To: "'Matthias Schunter \(Intel Corporation\)'" <mts-std@schunter.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>
I agree with David Singer that this is unclear. It seems to say retention of identifiers is OK within one domain origin but that would allow them by third-party frames and via redirection via other origin hosts. I know we don't mean that it could be read that way. To make it clear we would then have to further qualify the definition, maybe later when it is used for instance in the third-party compliance section. We would have to say data cannot be retained if referer(sic) headers, URL query parameters, postMessage events and whatever communicate cross-domain data i.e. that the identifier is somehow "attributable" to another domain/service. We could make this clear in the definition by adding some non-normative text like: Non-normative. It follows from this that data such as unique identifiers cannot be retained by a third-party if they can be associated with another host domain or service. Anyway, in my opinion the cross-domain qualification is already adequately made elsewhere and putting it here just complicates things, so we should remove "across multiple parties' domains or services and" or use Option 3 or 4. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] Sent: 09 October 2013 18:36 To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: ISSUE-5: Consensus definition of "tracking" for the intro? Hi Team, during our call, it seemed that the group was converging on a consensus for this definition of tracking (option 5 by Roy): Tracking is the collection of data across multiple parties' domains or services and retention of that data in a form that remains attributable to a specific user, user agent, or device. It is our "old" definition - corrected for grammar. Questions: (a) Are there further required improvements that we need to introduce? (b) Are there participants that cannot live with this style/type of definition (assuming we can provide the required final fine-tuning)? Regards, matthias
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 20:11:40 UTC