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

RE: Issue-5 Proposal-7

From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:08:30 +0000
To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
CC: 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>, 'Carl Cargill' <cargill@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB17D596C94A854E9EE4171D33BBCC811343D0AF@TK5EX14MBXC292.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Rob,

Could you clarify your statement? The list of things that you state describe tracking can be done in many scenarios that don't include the collection or use of online data and thus I feel shouldn't be included in a tracking definition.

Regards,
JC

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:54 AM
To: Mike O'Neill
Cc: 'David Singer'; 'Carl Cargill'; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue-5 Proposal-7

non normative addendum:

Tracking includes automated real time decisions, intended to analyse or predict the personality or certain personal aspects relating to a natural person, including the analysis and prediction of the person’s health, economic situation, information on political or philosophical beliefs , performance at work, leisure, personal preferences or interests, details and patterns on behavior, detailed location or movements. Tracking is defined in a technological neutral way and includes e.g. cookie based tracking technology, active and passive fingerprinting techniques.



Mike O'Neill schreef op 2013-10-30 14:45:
> I have a friendly amendment for Issue-5 Proposal-7. Replace 
> "recognises"
> with "assumes ". Recognition implies the truth is self-evident that is 
> the user is consciously allowing qualified tracking by visiting a 
> site, when it is not.
> 
> So it becomes:
> 
> In general terms, Tracking is the retention or use after a network 
> transaction is complete, or sharing, of data that is, or can be, 
> associated with a specific user, user agent, or device.
> 
> However, this recommendation assumes that by choosing to visit a site, 
> users allow First Parties to retain and use tracking data they collect 
> directly, or indirectly via Service Providers (though there are 
> restrictions on sharing); and it allows Third Parties to claim 
> permission to retain tracking data under some specific conditions 
> (e.g. for security, auditing, or for deferred processing of raw data).
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: 30 October 2013 09:10
> To: Carl Cargill
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Agenda for tomorrow, Issue-5 input, and regrets
> 
> I would like to nominate Proposal-7 for part of the call for 
> objections to
> Issue-5 (i.e. as a final candidate).
> 
> 
> HOWEVER, the definition of tracking relies on two important questions:
> 1. the definition of the terms it uses, notably network 
> transaction/interaction, collect, retain, and share 2. a great deal 
> depends on whether tracking is used in the normative text, i.e. if we 
> say 'third parties must stop tracking', or whether the restrictions 
> are written using other defined terms (e.g. third parties must not 
> collect data that can be associated…).  In the latter case, the 
> definition of tracking is merely setting the stage; in the former, 
> it's setting scope.
> 
> I think much of the debate between Roy and myself might concern 
> question 2, and I am not clear on it.  Is the group deciding to set 
> the stage, or set the scope, with this definition?  Will 'tracking' be 
> used in normative text in the specification, or not?
> 
> It's also going to be hard to agree on this before cleaning up (at
> least)
> 'network transaction', and maybe collect, retain, and share.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> My apologies for the call;  I am required to chair a session at the 
> MPEG meeting (Geneva).
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 17:30 , Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
>> All –
>> 
>> Our agenda for tomorrow.
>> 
>> As Matthias has pointed out for European participants, there is a
> divergence in the standard for daylight savings time between the two 
> continents, so please take that into account as we move forward 
> tomorrow.
>> 
>> Carl
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1. Confirmation of scribe.  Volunteers welcome
>> 
>> 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
>> 
>> 3. Update on evolution of TPWG plan (Carl/Matthias)
>> 
>> 
>> ---- issues for this Call ---
>> 
>> Note: See more info at the end for details.
>> 
>> 4. ISSUE-5  [Matthias]
>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/5

>> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definitio

> n
>>     DEADLINES for ISSUE-5:
>>     October 30: M3 (announcement) Call for objections to validate /
> determine consensus
>>     November 13: M5 (deadline) Deadline for inputs to call for 
>> objections
> (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts
>> 
>> 5.  ISSUE-10 [Matthias]
>>      http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10

>>      
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions

>>     DEADLINES for ISSUE-10:
>>     October 30: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate /
> determine consensus
>>     November 13: M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for 
>> objections
> (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts
>> 
>> 6.  ISSUE-16 What does it mean to collect, retain, use, and share 
>> data?
> (Carl)
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/16

>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Transience_Collec

>> tion
>> 
>>     DEADLINES for ISSUE-16:
>>     Oct 30: M1 Discuss change proposals + Call for final list of 
>> change
> proposals
>>     November 6: M2 List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion 
>> whether
> clear consensus emerges for one change proposal ISSUES-204, -217, -228 
> (definition of network interaction and user interaction) (Carl)
>> 
>>     Oct 30: M0 Initial call for change proposals; Submit all change
> proposals
>>     November 6: M1 Discuss change proposals + Call for final list of
> change proposals
>> 
>> 7.  ISSUES-204, -217, -228 (definition of network interaction and 
>> user
> interaction) (Carl)
>> 
>>     Oct 30: M0 Initial call for change proposals; Submit all change
> proposals
>>     November 6: M1 Discuss change proposals + Call for final list of
> change proposals
>> 
>> 8.  ISSUE-201 Interplay between UGE and Out of Band Consent 
>> (Matthias)
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/201

>> 
>> 
>> DEADLINES for ISSUE-201:
>>     Oct 30: M1 Discuss change proposals + Call for final list of 
>> change
> proposals
>>     November 6: M2 List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion 
>> whether
> clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
>> 
>> ================ Summary Documentation on Resolving ISSUES
> =================
>> Complete list of issues against the compliance-current spec:
>>  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5

>> 
>> PHASES to resolve issues:
>> M0 (announcement): Initial call for change proposals; All change 
>> proposals
> should be drafted
>> M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; 
>> Discussion
> on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals
>> M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion 
>> whether
> clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
>> M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine 
>> consensus
>> M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks 
>> after
> M3); Analysis starts
>> M7 (announcement): Results are announced
>> 
>> STATUS of the ISSUES:
>> - OPEN During phases M0, M1, M2
>> - PENDING REVIEW: During phases M3, M5
>> - CLOSED after M7
>> All other issues are RAISED.
>> -----
>> This URL
>> As indicated in our plan, the following issues are currently OPEN for
> discussion in our calls.
>> ================ Infrastructure =================
>> 
>> Zakim teleconference bridge:
>> VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
>> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225) IRC Chat: 
>> irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
>> 
>> OFFLINE caller identification:
>> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your 
>> phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
>> (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in 
>> my case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of time. If you 
>> are not comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your 
>> phone number, please email your name and phone number to 
>> npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact,
>> eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note 
>> that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to 
>> off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 17:10:06 UTC

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