Re: ISSUE-219 (context separation)

My apologies John, I didn't notice that your language was designed to address both issues.  Thank you for drawing attention to that!

I'd like to separate the two issues out, so I'm going to remove that sentence from the proposal in the call for objections.  If you think Walter's language on 219 is sufficient to accomplish the same thing, then we can just go with his language.  If you want to propose a friendly amendment to Walter's (or argue to replace his with yours), then you can do that too.  But I don't think we should conflate 170 and 219 --- I should have noted that earlier.

On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:40 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
> 
> 
> I’m confused here. My proposal not to allow data append, now subject of a call for objections, includes language that would prevent using data gathered as a 1st party when you are a third party:
> 
> "When DNT:1 is received:
> 
> "A 1st Party MUST NOT combine or otherwise use identifiable data received from another party with data it has collected while a 1st Party.
> 
> "A 1st Party MUST NOT share identifiable data with another party unless the data was provided voluntarily by, or necessary to supply a service explicitly requested by, the user.
> 
> "A Party MUST NOT use data gathered while a 1st Party when operating as a 3rd Party.
> 
> "A 1st Party MAY elect further restrictions on the collection or use of such data."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> As we discussed on the call this week, we are narrowing in on two options on how to deal with first parties using their data in different, third-party contexts under Do Not Track.
>> 
>> The current proposals are to stay silent on the issue --- effectively permitting first parties to use data in third-party contexts.
>> 
>> The second option, proposed by Walter van Holst, proposes new language and would prohibit third parties from personalizing content based on old first-party data.  His amendment states that when a third party receives a DNT:1 signal, 
>> 
>> the third party MUST NOT use data about previous network interactions outside of the permitted uses as defined within this recommendation and any explicitly-granted exceptions, provided in accordance with the requirements of this recommendation.
>> 
>> If anyone has a friendly amendment to Walter's language, please propose it!  Otherwise, we will go to a call for objection on this issue next week.
>> 
>