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

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

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:54:12 -0400
Message-ID: <525EB6A4.7040800@appnexus.com>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Thanks, Walter. Comments below.

On 2013-10-16 11:46 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> 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 don't disagree that there are other scenarios not accounted for, but I 
thought we'd agreed to restrict efforts for now to activity that takes 
place in a web browser.
>
> - 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.
To these points, I think I agree. I would put more emphasis on the 
promise to users than on the contractual relationships. To me, the key 
point is that the affiliated parties make a prominent promise to users. 
That promise then becomes enforceable by users or regulators, without a 
need to enforce via the contracts between parties. I always had that in 
mind, and I think Alan did as well:

". . . 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."

-David
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 15:54:47 UTC

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