- From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:54:20 +0100
- To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Walter van Holst'" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] > Sent: 26 June 2014 15:25 > To: Walter van Holst > Cc: public-tracking@w3.org > 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 <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> > 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 bit.ly in any way resembling the intent he or she has to visit > facebook.com > > > > And to give an example of where I think intent becomes sufficiently blurred to > consider a destination a first party: www.apple.com being the default > homepage for Safari users. Even though a substantial number of visits to > apple.com 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. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32) Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/ Charset: utf-8 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTrDQcAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JALEH/212c2UJLX3S8N0qp1sVyr/y NMS1DTjYyRI15p6eszsszJvHwQTgYrugwtu79M5FTeU5vGaS20DKyO292XzY7Ga+ z17/eBDfCkn/vRFSQ78y8Hn5M1z73fNkJciokTgrXvE4GZgii9hYHs8N5jQi+2eI ReJvBfBP/Nad80x5MxFSFGKS0wvez0Z59+32H7wPZlkyXp45FU7iQOT2ZybHOAvx YBTeh1+AmMTm2+2sAmBJ0QckdRn8OhZ8EQvIr4iD22fiBNgnEWous0iMeY/91tf/ X6t0rChKgcMxnV4dkBjq/TKNNP2cvA0PNXpvJ+rgeJ7eyE0QrR2Ih8FzPIO6To0= =JTns -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 14:54:52 UTC