W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2017

Issue 13 (was Re: Issues for Monday Call)

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:43:37 -0700
Message-Id: <F23B2BCE-468F-4A60-8EE8-D512835A0FC0@aleecia.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I was in the queue but we timed out, so a few follow up points:

1. Just for historic accuracy / trivia, DNT was not always from the beginning to omit first parties. Check the original issue tracker or the early days of the mailing list to find hot debates as to what level of responsibility first parties ought to have. But we are not constitutional scholars so it is moot either way, yes? :-) It just seemed unfair to beat up on Walter when he wasn’t even wrong...

2. If I understood Shane’s use case correctly today, the flow would be something like this:
	User Alice agrees to a site-wide exception for yahoo.com, including flickr.com and other parties that Yahoo lists as related first parties. Yahoo’s third parties are imported by reference — Yahoo adds a URL to a list maintained by an ad network. Alice’s consent covers all of the ad network’s partners.

	User Bob comes along a week later, and the ad network’s partners have changed. Bob also consents, but he consents to a different list of partners, as he would know if he found Yahoo’s list of third parties which includes the ad network’s list of current partners.

	Here’s my question. When Alice visits right after Bob, with the new ad network’s partners, does her prior consent omit the newly added partners? Or does Yahoo believe she has consented to all ad network partners that ever could be, even into the future?

(Basically, I’m asking about caching and wildcard consent.)

Thanks for any clarifications here. 

Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 17:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:34 UTC