RE: link shorteners etc.

Hash: SHA1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer []
> Sent: 26 June 2014 15:25
> To: Walter van Holst
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: link shorteners etc.
> Thank you for the analysis, I agree with your analysis of link shorteners.  (And I
> think the conversation has otherwise got off track; we don’t need to debate the
> precise details of the 1st party rules nor why we got to where we are, to resolve
> link shorteners.)
> Perhaps we can work towards text on link shorteners now?
> “For the avoidance of doubt, link shorteners are not destinations, and not
> destinations that a user intends to visit, and hence are third parties as defined in
> this recommendation.” ?
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:15 , Walter van Holst <>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Walter
> >
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 -
Charset: utf-8


Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 14:54:52 UTC