Re: link shorteners etc.

On 2014-06-25 20:24, David Singer wrote:

>> That's why I introduced a qualifier of non-obviousness. And yes, it is 
>> frustrating that it is unlikely to have a more concrete and tangible 
>> test than this staple of law, the man in the Clapham omnibus, or 
>> whatever the equivalent is in your local lawyer's vernacular. (Next 
>> time I'm in London I must make a pilgrimage to Clapham by bus)
> it’s tricky in these click-baiting cases, isn’t it?  what DID the user 
> ‘intend’?

Intent is always a slipper subject and fodder for behavioural 
psychologists. On this particular topic however, we shouldn't get too 
academic. The only justification we have for first parties being exempt 
from DNT is that first parties tend to be a surfing destination, a 
context so to speak, on their own. From that perspective it would be 
strange to forbid tracking of user behaviour within that context while 
the problem we want to address is tracking across contexts. A URL 
shortener is no such destination and in practice tries to stay out of 
the way as much as possible without any formal relationship with the 
user (unlike identity providers) or the destination server (unlike 
content delivery networks). And it doesn't take a great leap of faith to 
assume that the average user will not intent to visit in any way 
resembling the intent he or she has to visit

And to give an example of where I think intent becomes sufficiently 
blurred to consider a destination a first party: being the 
default homepage for Safari users. Even though a substantial number of 
visits to is unintentional, it is sufficiently clear that it 
is Apple and the user can change the default easily.



Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 19:16:23 UTC