Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

Thanks Chris ­ clarifying question.

Your proposal includes language around the definition of "party"  ---  but
the language pertaining to party is not on the wiki.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0102.html

Can you clarify?


From:  Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
Date:  Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:40 AM
To:  Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
Cc:  Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org"
<public-tracking@w3.org>, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Subject:  Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context?
[Tracking   Preference Expression (DNT)]
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:40:54 +0000

> Rob Sherman, Susan Israel and I developed the following definition of context.
> I'm about to board a flight so I will miss today's call. But happy to discuss
> over email. 
> 
> "A context is the collection of network resources that are operated or
> co-operated by a party."
> 
> This refers back to the working group's definition of "party":
>> A party is a natural person, a legal entity, or a set of legal entities that
>> share common owner(s), common controller(s), and a group identity that is
>> easily discoverable by a user. Common branding or providing a list of
>> affiliates that is available via a link from a resource where a party
>> describes DNT practices are examples of ways to provide this discoverability.
>> 
>> Within the context of a given user action, afirst party is a party with which
>> the user intends to interact, via one or more network interactions, as a
>> result of making that action. Merely hovering over, muting, pausing, or
>> closing a given piece of content does not constitute a user's intent to
>> interact with another party.
>> 
>> In some cases, a resource on the Web will be jointly controlled by two or
>> more distinct parties. Each of those parties is considered a first party if a
>> user would reasonably expect to communicate with all of them when accessing
>> that resource. For example, prominent co-branding on the resource might lead
>> a user to expect that multiple parties are responsible for the content or
>> functionality.
>> 
>> For any data collected as a result of one or more network interactions
>> resulting from a user's action, a third party is any party other than that
>> user, a first party for that user action, or a service provider acting on
>> behalf of either that user or that first party.
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Ninja Marnau" <ninja@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you, Mike! I will add it to the wiki and maybe Rob and and you can
>> discuss in the call today whether to merge it.
>> 
>> Ninja
>> 
>> Am 08.01.14 14:34, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
>>> Hi Ninja,
>>> 
>>> Here is my definition of contexts. It has the same drift as Rob's so I
>>> expect we will converge.
>>> 
>>> Contexts are the user discernable locales within which they can give or
>>> withdraw their consent to data controllers for the collection and use of
>>> data about their web activity, geo-location or identity.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ninja Marnau [mailto:ninja@w3.org]
>>>> Sent: 07 January 2014 23:04
>>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org; Rob van Eijk
>>>> Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context?
>>>> [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
>>>> 
>>>> I created a wiki page with text proposals for ISSUE-240:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_conte
>>>> xt
>>>> 
>>>> Currently, only Roy's initial text proposal is listed.
>>>> 
>>>> Rob, as you suggested a completely different approach (rather user
>>>> expectation than relation to party/branding) in your email from December
>>>> 18, could you work on an text proposal to add to the wiki page?
>>>> 
>>>> Ninja
>>>> 
>>>> Am 18.12.13 19:37, schrieb Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker:
>>>>> tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking
>>>> Preference Expression (DNT)]
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
>>>>> 
>>>>> Raised by: Justin Brookman
>>>>> On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The definition of tracking that was adopted by the group includes a
>>>>> concept of
>>>> "context" that some members have asked that the text define more clearly.
>>>>> Roy Fielding was the author of this definition, and included this language
>>>>> on
>>>> context in the Call for Objections poll:
>>>>> The above definition also depends on there being a definition of context
>>>>> that
>>>> bounds a scope of user activity, though it is not dependent on any
>>>> particular
>>>> definition of that term. For example, something along the lines of: "For
>>>> the
>>>> purpose of this definition, a context is a set of resources that share the
>>>> same
>>>> data controller, same privacy policy, and a common branding, such that a
>>>> user
>>>> would expect that data collected by one of those resources is available to
>>>> all
>>>> other resources within the same context."
>>>>> Alternatively, the group might decide that the common sense meaning of
>>>> context is sufficient, as it more closely approximates a user's general
>>>> intent in
>>>> turning on the Do Not Track signal.
>>>>> We will continue discussion of this topic on the January 8th call, but we
>>>> encourage discussion of these (and other) ideas on the list in the
>>>> meantime.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>