Re: ISSUE-5: Consensus definition of "tracking" for the intro?

On 16/10/2013 16:04, David Wainberg wrote:
> On 2013-10-15 6:14 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 15:04 , David Wainberg <>
>> wrote:
>>> btw, aren't there 1 or 2 proposals missing from the wiki?
>> The attempts at consensus since the call for proposals closed don't
>> appear, true, but surely everything up to then does (if it was
>> submitted as a proposal)?
> Alan's proposal is not in the wiki:

Let me emphasize first that the current debate about Issue 5 is breeze
of fresh air compared to some debates we had in the past. Alan's
proposal is another example of the kind of constructive input that we
need to get anywhere. That said, a few remarks from a privacy perspective:

- there is an undue focus on browsing activities. To me a UA can also be
a mobile app with in-app third-party content, be it ads or other
material. Or an e-reader, since epub is just another flavour of XHTML.

- I agree with the notion that ownership of a party may not always be
sufficient to establish the status of the party. I do disagree with the
notion that easily discoverable tracking preferences sufficient to
redress the shortcomings of the ownership notion. I think that if
branding or contractual relationships come into play the SAME-PARTY flag
must be used and for that purpose I would be very much in favour of it
becoming a mandatory part of the DNT standard.

The fundamental objection that I have is that in jurisdictions where
enforcement of DNT would take place through contract law this would
hinder enforcement. It does not provide the transparency users deserve
and require to make this work.

That said, I haven't seen this close an alignment on tracking across
industry, privacy advocates, browser makers and regulators as we have now.



Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 15:47:07 UTC