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

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

From: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:52:53 +0000
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141AB679@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>

I likewise echo the positive feelings.

On your first point, I understand there is capacity to cover a broader scope but would recommend we limit v1 to "browsing activity".  This is the lion share of the issue at hand and I believe builds a good launching point for becoming more granular over time.

On the second point, it's still my hope we can agree on the "easily discoverable" approach to sharing affiliate relationships.  I agree that contractual relationships are not the appropriate path here and we should instead focus on firm concepts of legal ownership and control (and common privacy policies) to effectuate a 1st party relationship.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:47 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: 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 <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
>> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Oct/0018.html

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 15:53:57 UTC

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