RE: Issue-22, possible other direction

Hi David,

I think your text may be merged with my proposal. my suggestions are in [[ ]]

[[Since a user's experience on a given site might be composed of resources that are assembled from multiple domains, it might be useful for a site to distinguish those domains that are not subject to their own control (i.e., no information might be obtained via the controller property or the same-party property).]] OtherParties is a list of [[domains]] that are operated by data controllers other than the first party, that may be referenced by the first party site and are [[domains]] to its operation, and for whom the first party has [some confidence? assurance? belief?] that they will at least respect the DNT header. There is no assurance or statement made about parties encountered on the first party that are not in the union of the first party, the sameParty array, and the otherParties array. [[An origin server MAY send a property named other-party with an array value containing a list of (sub)domain names that the origin server claims to include, to the extent they are referenced by the designated resource, and if all data collected via those references do not share the same data controller as the designated resource.]]

-----Original message-----
From: David Singer
Sent: Friday, May 19 2017, 11:12 pm
To: Rob van Eijk
Cc: Shane Wiley; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation); public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue-22, possible other direction


OK, I am slowly building the picture in my mind. Thanks for being patient.

Perhaps it’s something like this?

otherParties is a list of sites that are operated by data controllers other than the first party, that may be referenced by the first party site and are [essential? useful?] to its operation, and for whom the first party has [some confidence? assurance? belief?] that they will at least respect the DNT header. There is no assurance or statement made about parties encountered on the first party that are not in the union of the first party, the sameParty array, and the otherParties array.

Now, what the UA, regulators, privacy researchers etc. do with this list (and sites encountered that are not on this list) is up to them, but at least it conveys something. 

I’m still not sure, but….

> On May 19, 2017, at 13:51 , Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> > wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I appreciate your constructiveness.
> 
> >> If these are both true, then the array could be a complete myth and still conformant. In that case, what use is it to anyone?
> 
> You are right that the array could be a myth. However, the feedback I received tells me that a site owners see use.Two simple use cases are:
> 
> A: no tracking
> e.g. a site uses a third party API (Acuityscheduling) which uses two embedded patners NewRelic and trackJS to monitor for JavaScript problems with the scheduling API. Under EU law companies may want to use the otherParties property to be specific about embedded resources not under contract, i.e., The site signed a contract with Acquity (data processor) but that contract does not  cover NewRelic and TrackJS. To distinguish between the boundaries of the site's control app.acuityscheduling.com would go under 'sameParty' and usage.trackjs.com, js-agent.newrelic.com, and bam.nr-data.net would go under 'otherParty'..
> 
> B: publisher
> Bundled consent on 1st party sites, the otherParties property together with the controler property and the sameParty property can fulfill (part of) the information requirement under EU law and thus enable bundled consent by the 1st party on behalf of same/otherParties.
> 
> Hope this helps. 
> 
> --
> Rob
> 
> -----Original message-----
> From: David Singer
> Sent: Friday, May 19 2017, 6:39 pm
> To: Rob van Eijk
> Cc: Shane Wiley; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation); public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> 
> Subject: Re: Issue-22, possible other direction
> 
> Do we have proposed spec. text?  
> 
> Rob, I am still concerned that the ‘transparency’ may be a myth if I am right and the array can be wrong:
> 
> a) by omission; the first party site may pull in sites not mentioned in the otherParty array (quite likely, full coverage may be very hard to achieve);
> b) by inclusion: the array might mention sites that are not, in fact, pulled in on a given visit (quite likely, as what other sites are pulled in depends on a host of factors)
> 
> If these are both true, then the array could be a complete myth and still conformant. In that case, what use is it to anyone?
> 
> > On May 18, 2017, at 13:02 , Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> > wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Shane,
> > 
> > Just trying to find a middle ground here. I believe there is a win-win for publishers, companies with embedded resources, and privacy advocates since the overarching problems are actually not that different. If you want to push this to call for objections, fine. I am open to exploring possible other directions a bit further, but like I said, it's up to you.
> > 
> > I still disagree with the last sentence. Having an otherParties (sub)domain list improves - in my opinion - the standard in comparison with existing fields and paths to transparency. People are not going to read lists of embedded parrties form a url. Instead, I believe people would want to trust their browser being a proxy for them. The otherParties does IMHO not break or create confusion with other parts of the existing standard if defined clearly. I proposed an optional property (MAY) in the well-known resource. The aim is to provide an informational building block for companies who what to be specific about the resources they embed. The information can be read pre-flight from the well-known location.
> > 
> > Rob
> > ———
> > PGP id: CC4F3863 [public key]
> > PGP fingerprint: 1D00 A9FD 7CCB A5A5 850E 2149 BEA0 20B7 CC4F 3863
> > 
> > Social media: @rvaneijk, github, linkedin, ssrn, stackoverflow
> > ———
> > 
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Shane Wiley
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18 2017, 9:19 pm
> > To: Rob van Eijk; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation); public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> 
> > Subject: Re: Issue-22, possible other direction
> > 
> > Rob,
> > 
> > otherParty is not a good replacement for Ads.txt for the following reasons:
> > 
> > - Carries more information that is ad industry specific
> > - List is limited to only ad inventory partners - doesn't list other 3rd parties on the page
> > 
> > This is a publisher working directly with the ad ecosystem to declare those that should be allowed to participate in a bid prior to it taking place and is specifically made available for the ad call event.
> > 
> > As your stated purpose of otherParties is purely for consumer transparency (not automated blocking) it doesn't require the same level of detail, can include many other 3rd parties that are not specific to ad serving (such as analytics, video players, widgets, etc.), and doesn't need to be machine readable as a human is the intended recipient for consent consideration.
> > 
> > - Shane
> > 
> > Shane Wiley
> > VP, Privacy
> > Yahoo
> > 
> > 
> > From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> >
> > To: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org> >; "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> " <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> > 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 11:52 AM
> > Subject: RE: Issue-22, possible other direction
> > 
> > Hi Shane, David,
> > 
> > My proposal is in fact not far from the machine readable ads.txt file proposed by the IAB Tech Lab OpenRTB Working Group. (https://iabtechlab.com/ads-txt/).The otherParties property could eliminate the need fot the ads.txt file. We could make the content of the otherParties property useful such that it is fit for purpose for specific consent as well as  minimizing data leakage that will help against domain spoofing and other types of ad fraud/malvertising. Please let me know if we should explore this further.
> > 
> > Rob
> > ———
> > PGP id: CC4F3863 [public key]
> > PGP fingerprint: 1D00 A9FD 7CCB A5A5 850E 2149 BEA0 20B7 CC4F 3863
> > 
> > Social media: @rvaneijk, github, linkedin, ssrn, stackoverflow
> > ———
> > 
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18 2017, 6:32 pm
> > To: public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> 
> > Subject: Re: Issue-22, possible other direction
> > 
> > Hi Shane,
> > 
> > we can use this as your text proposal (i.e. only the field syntax is

> > changed from array to URL). If you  want to propose something else, feel
> > free to do so ASAP.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot!
> > 
> > matthias
> > 
> > 
> > On 15.05.2017 23:09, Shane Wiley wrote:
> >> Rob,
> >> 
> >> If a data controller were to provide a link to a list of their 3rd
> >> parties in the TSR or to a user more directly during their consent
> >> dialogue, would that meet legal obligations?  
> >> 
> >> otherParty: www.companyxyz.com/3rdparties/list.html <http://www.companyxyz.com/3rdparties/list.html> 
> >> <" target="_blank">http://www.companyxyz.com/3rdparties/list.html> <http://www.companyxyz.com/3rdparties/list.html> ;;;
> >> 
> >> Why does this need to be machine readable if we're taking blocking off
> >> the table?  Additionally, since we already allow publishers to only
> >> request site specific exceptions for specific 3rd party domains, why is
> >> this additional list needed?  We already appear to have all the utility
> >> needed to support ad exchange scenarios such that publishers can request
> >> consent for only those 3rd party domains they have knowledge of and a
> >> contract with - so what does this add?
> >> 
> >> If these are true:
> >> 
> >>   - the Data Controller is responsible for the interaction between
> >> themselves and the user with respect to consent,
> >>   - consent can be obtained by providing a list of specific third
> >> parties in human readable form to a user as long as the scope is
> >> specific and informed,
> >>   - the current standard allows exceptions (consent) to only be
> >> provided for a specific list of third parties (wildcards need not be used),
> >>   - AND, as a working group we're not attempting to backdoor tracking
> >> protection lists for domain blocking
> >> 
> >> ...I'm not seeing the "transparency" value of otherParty.
> >> 
> >> - Shane
> >> 
> >> Shane Wiley
> >> VP, Privacy
> >> Yahoo
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *From:* Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> >
> >> *To:* "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>  (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> )"
> >> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> >
> >> *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 12:24 PM
> >> *Subject:* FW: Issue-22, possible other direction
> >> 
> >> FW: Issue-22, possible other direction
> >> ... including the lsit
> >> 
> >>        -----Original message-----
> >>        *From:* Rob van Eijk
> >>        *Sent:* Monday, May 15 2017, 9:08 pm
> >>        *To:* David Singer; singer@apple.com <mailto:singer@apple.com> ; Shane Wiley
> >>        *Cc:* Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation); Roy T. Fielding

> >>        *Subject:* RE: Issue-22, possible other direction
> >> 
> >>        Hi,
> >> 
> >>        I think it may be helpful to go back to the initial consensus
> >>        [1]. I am not a proponent of an API component in this
> >>        discussion. I would be happy with a simple, optional (MAY)
> >>        otherParties property in the TSR that complements the sameParty
> >>        property. I believe the otherParties property is beneficial for
> >>        different types of site owners, ranging from non-tracking sites
> >>        to RTB-driven sites.
> >> 
> >>        I think we can keep the TPE clean and simple. The aim of the

> >>        otherParties property is (optional) transparency.
> >> 
> >>        [1]
> >>        https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2017May/0003.html
> >> 
> >>        Rob
> >>        ———
> >>        PGP id: CC4F3863 [public key
> >>        <;;]
> >>        PGP fingerprint: 1D00 A9FD 7CCB A5A5 850E 2149 BEA0 20B7 CC4F 3863
> >> 
> >>        Social media: @rvaneijk <;;, github
> >>        <;;,
> >>        <
> >>        <;;,
> >>        <
> >>        <;;,
> >>        <
> >>        <;;
> >>        ———
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Dave Singer
> 
> singer@mac.com <mailto:singer@mac.com> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.