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

RE: Issue-5 Proposal-7

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:17:53 +0100
To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Carl Cargill'" <cargill@adobe.com>, public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <fb320bb3e6ffad51638c16a90f96561d@xs4all.nl>

Hi JC,

I would rather first continue the side conversation with Mike and David, 
as Mike suggested earlier on the call.

tnx::Rob

JC Cannon schreef op 2013-10-30 18:08:
> 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 17:18:32 UTC

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