- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:20:40 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 2014-10-31 21:40, Shane M Wiley wrote: > Vincent, > > The 1:M nature of the transaction does create challenges but it is > still a Service Provider and should be treated as such. Frankly, I don't see a way to reconcile the 1:M nature of the relationship as reconcilable with the definition of Service Provider. "For the data received in a given network interaction, a service provider is considered to be the same party as its contractee if the service provider: - processes the data on behalf of the contractee; - ensures that the data is only retained, accessed, and used as directed by the contractee; - has no independent right to use the data other than in a permanently deidentified form (e.g., for monitoring service integrity, load balancing, capacity planning, or billing); and, - has a contract in place with the contractee which is consistent with the above limitations." The above simply requires that a bidding platform cannot broadcast tracking information in order to be considered a service provider. Regards, Walter
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 12:21:09 UTC