15:24:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:24:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/05/21-dnt-irc
15:24:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:24:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:24:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
15:24:19 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:24:19 <trackbot> Date: 21 May 2014
15:25:52 <ninja> chairs: justin, carl, schunter
15:26:03 <ninja> regrets: dsinger
15:45:31 <Chris_M> Chris_M has joined #dnt
15:51:35 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:51:43 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:53:59 <ninja> regrets+ WileyS
15:55:51 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:55:58 <Zakim> +Carl_Cargill
15:56:45 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
15:57:45 <Zakim> +??P1
15:57:58 <schunter> Zakim, ??P1 is schunter
15:57:58 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
15:58:25 <ninja> zakim, call ninja-mobile
15:58:25 <Zakim> ok, ninja; the call is being made
15:58:26 <Zakim> +Ninja
15:58:37 <Zakim> +??P2
15:59:00 <Chris_M> Just joined via a private number
15:59:12 <ninja> thanks Chris_M
15:59:17 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
15:59:19 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:59:27 <ninja> zakim, ??P2 is Chris_M
15:59:27 <Zakim> +Chris_M; got it
15:59:44 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:59:51 <Zakim> + +1.303.949.aaaa
16:00:04 <JackHobaugh> Zakin, aaaa is JackHobaugh
16:00:20 <JackHobaugh> Zakim, aaaa is JackHobaugh
16:00:20 <Zakim> +JackHobaugh; got it
16:00:28 <Zakim> + +31.65.275.aabb
16:00:28 <Zakim> +eberkower
16:00:44 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
16:00:46 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me, please
16:00:46 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:00:50 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:01:01 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:01:11 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:01:18 <Zakim> +WaltMichel
16:01:20 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:01:24 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:01:44 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:01:51 <Zakim> +kulick
16:01:52 <ninja> zakim, aabb is rvaneijk
16:01:52 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:02:04 <ninja> zakim, who is here?
16:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Carl_Cargill, schunter, Ninja, Chris_M, Amy_Colando, JackHobaugh, rvaneijk, eberkower (muted), Peder_Magee, Chris_Pedigo, WaltMichel, Fielding, kulick
16:02:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see adrianba, ChrisPedigoOPA, justin, fielding, eberkower, npdoty, WaltMichel, JackHobaugh, schunter, Chris_M, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, walter, hober, trackbot, wseltzer
16:02:22 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aacc
16:02:24 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:02:48 <vinay> That was me
16:02:57 <adrianba> Present+ adrianba
16:03:00 <ninja> zakim, aacc is vinay
16:03:01 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
16:03:27 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:03:30 <ninja> Volunteer for scribing today?
16:03:31 <justin> zakim, cdt has me
16:03:31 <Zakim> +justin; got it
16:03:33 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
16:03:50 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:04:06 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:04:08 <vinay> I can do the first half of the call (since I haven't done it in a while)
16:04:12 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
16:04:16 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:04:30 <ninja> scribenick: vinay
16:04:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:04:31 <magee> magee has joined #dnt
16:04:39 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Carl_Cargill, schunter, Ninja, Chris_M, JackHobaugh, rvaneijk, eberkower (muted), Peder_Magee, Chris_Pedigo, WaltMichel, Fielding, kulick, vinay, [CDT], npdoty,
16:04:42 <Zakim> ... Amy_Colando, [IPcaller]
16:04:42 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin
16:04:44 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:04:44 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:05:07 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Service_Provider
16:05:15 <vinay> Justin: Getting started.  Just a few issues on today's agenda.  Going to start with talking about Service Providers
16:05:45 <vinay> ... Existing language in text right now that says you can use Service providers and they're not a third party if there are protections in place that say they can use the data only for you
16:05:48 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 1
16:05:48 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Service Providers (ISSUE-206: Service Provider name and requirements)" taken up [from ninja]
16:05:54 <vinay> ... Roy has tweaked it slightly.  Justin is summarizing it briefly
16:06:14 <vinay> ... SP is the 'same party' if the conditions are met (as described in Roy's proposal)
16:06:14 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:06:45 <vinay> ... somewhat contingent on the definition of de-identified data since that's still an open item
16:06:59 <vinay> Justin: Roy explained the justification last time, and didn't think it was that controversial
16:07:16 <vinay> ... though there have been previous proposals in the past with more stringent requirements (like no merging...)
16:07:24 <vinay> ... nobody on the call last week wanted to take that up
16:07:40 <vinay> ... if anyone wants to resurrect/argue for that proposal, they need to speak up soon
16:07:43 <justin> q?
16:08:06 <kulick> +q
16:08:08 <vinay> Justin: Any questions about Roy's proposal, problems with Roy's text, etc.?
16:08:14 <justin> ack kulick
16:08:39 <vinay> Kulick: Can someone explain the differences between current language and Roy's proposal?
16:08:45 <Chris_M> no fundamental problem with Roy's direction... May have to define "contract" and "contractee"
16:08:56 <vinay> Fielding: Would label them all as nuances
16:09:12 <vinay> ... thinks the editor's text has the same 4 requirements on it
16:09:26 <vinay> ... but are rephrasing the terms to provide either neutral terms or terms that are already used
16:09:30 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
16:09:47 <vinay> ... for example, the current text references 'data processor' whereas some people didn't want to define that term (and we don't have a definition)
16:09:54 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:09:54 <JackHobaugh> I recommend that “service provider” be delayed until “de-identified” is fully addressed because the current proposal for service provider cannot be fully understood without a definition for “de-identified.”
16:10:15 <vinay> ... new proposal includes the term 'contractee' because the word client may cause confusion as client has other meanings
16:10:44 <vinay> ... added the word 'retained' in (2) but doesn't think it changes the meaning.  just addressing the ambiguity
16:11:17 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:11:35 <vinay> ... (3) original text has an idea on this, but had exceptions that were already allowed.  Roy's new proposal provides examples of ways to use de-identified data and lists a few
16:12:14 <vinay> justin: To Roy, do we need to define contractee?
16:12:22 <Zakim> + +1.425.614.aadd
16:12:24 <vinay> Roy: Doesn't matter to me, but I thought it was a clear term
16:12:25 <npdoty> is "contract" ambiguous? I don't think we're giving it a special meaning here
16:12:28 <adrianba> zakim, aadd is me
16:12:28 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:12:33 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:12:33 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:12:43 <Chris_M> let me think about it further... nothing now
16:13:01 <vinay> Justin: Would be open if someone wants to submit a definition of contract and contractee
16:13:41 <vinay> Justin: Re: De-Identification, while here, its also a separate issue.  Lots of things in the process have exceptions re: de-identified uses (which are still undefined)
16:14:04 <vinay> ... Trying to solve for 'service providers' in an identifiable form on behalf of its client
16:14:09 <justin> q?
16:14:17 <vinay> ... inclination is to not postpone it, but is open to hearing points to postpone it
16:14:33 <Zakim> +Susan_Israel
16:14:40 <justin> q?
16:14:42 <vinay> ... doesn't hear on the call more requirements for the filing of data; so Justin will email the mailing list
16:14:47 <ninja> agree with justin. Regarding tracking data the de-id exception could simply be stated as: The service-provider has no independent right to use the data
16:14:53 <Chris_M> could a contractee COLLECT the data for their client?
16:14:55 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_First_Party_Compliance
16:14:55 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:15:06 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 2
16:15:06 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Data Append and First Parties (ISSUE-170: Definition of and what/whether limitations around data append and first parties)" taken up [from ninja]
16:15:18 <vinay> Justin: next topic -- Data Appends / First Party Compliance
16:15:53 <vinay> ... concern about data appends.  can a first party send data to offline data brokers (for example)?
16:16:23 <Zakim> + +1.202.370.aaee
16:16:28 <vinay> ... <summarizing of current text in editor's draft>
16:16:41 <Chris_M> fielding, per your proposal, could a contractee COLLECT the data for their client?
16:16:52 <vinay> ... Some folks (John Simpson) has asked for more restrictions
16:17:17 <vinay> ... trying to limit appends of first parties
16:17:50 <ninja> Chris_M, Service provider and first party can share data (as long as it is in the same context)
16:17:56 <npdoty> regrets+ wileys, dsinger
16:18:10 <Chris_M> fielding, from your proposal, it appears that it would have to be a 2-step process: 1) 1st party collects the data, and then 2) pass it to a service provider for processing
16:18:12 <vinay> ... The group has previously talked about provisions about this that may set limits between the first party and the data broker, but i don't see any within the current proposals
16:18:40 <justin> q?
16:19:00 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:19:09 <vinay> Chris P: Explaining his rational for requesting the deletion of "A first party may elect to follow the rules for 3rd parties."
16:19:23 <vinay> ... its an optional standard and doesn't add much
16:19:50 <vinay> Susan I: Against adding optional language that suggests adopting a stricter standard because it could be considered mandatory by some parties
16:20:37 <vinay> Justin: Rigo's proposal was an attempt to assist EU companies in compliance with legal requirements there
16:20:41 <ninja> justin, rob is on the call but muted
16:20:52 <npdoty> (we can decide on "MAY" and not "MUST", they don't turn into one another accidentally)
16:21:23 <vinay> ... Part of the discussions around global considerations.  RVE may be interested in pursuing this.  Justin will follow-up with Rob about it
16:21:24 <fielding> Chris_M, I am not seeing that in my text … it doesn't say who received the data, so yes a SP can collect the data on behalf of the contractee
16:21:36 <moneill2> +q
16:21:48 <justin> ack mon
16:21:51 <vinay> Justin: Talking about the meeting in Berlin for global considerations...  Rob and Rigo were hopeful, but others (Justin and Vinay) were skeptical
16:21:52 <susanisrael> npdoty: happy to discuss the "may"/"must" issue generally with you offline
16:22:15 <vinay> moneill: DNT:0 as a UGE would be used a lot by EU companies for ePrivacy compliance
16:22:43 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:23:01 <vinay> ... important to take into account
16:23:11 <vinay> Justin: Trying to understand this in practice
16:23:30 <Chris_M> fielding, #2 may confuse people on the matter of collection... because of the use/placement of the word "only" (and the absence of the word/practice "collect")
16:23:48 <vinay> Mike: If you're a first party server, and you get consent for their users, you can use a cookie to store consent.
16:23:56 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
16:24:11 <vinay> ... but to signal to third parties, the DNT signal could assist to assign DNT:0 to third parties
16:24:26 <ninja> zakim, mute me
16:24:26 <Zakim> Ninja should now be muted
16:24:32 <fielding> Chris_M, the data has already been received.
16:24:43 <Chris_M> fielding, I'm probably splitting hairs, but thinking of situations where the SP does mechanically do collection for their client
16:25:15 <vinay> ... Might be good to get further clarity on this
16:25:25 <vinay> Justin: The definition of tracking doesn't speak to first party collection
16:25:36 <vinay> Mike: It doesn't matter.  You're using DNT as a signal to 3rd parties
16:26:04 <npdoty> q+
16:26:05 <Chris_M> fielding, got it... so I guess it would leave it as ambiguous for the matter of whether a SP could collect (on behalf of their contractee) in the first place
16:26:08 <susanisrael> i don't follow Mike's point
16:26:12 <vinay> Justin: May not fully understand the issue, but perhaps would be more productive to take to the mailing list
16:26:47 <vinay> Justin: Talking about Vinay's proposal.  Reading it out loud.
16:27:19 <npdoty> vinay: my intent isn't to make substantive changes from the current text; just that "normal" was confusing or ambiguous
16:27:23 <fielding> I don't think it is ambiguous … collect would be redundant: "A party collects data received in a network interaction if that data remains within the party’s control after the network interaction is complete."
16:27:40 <npdoty> ... for example, if a company's normal collection is to sell to third-parties
16:27:43 <ninja> q?
16:27:53 <npdoty> ... and +1 to susan/chris on striking the optional requirement
16:28:04 <justin> q?
16:28:15 <vinay> Nick: Was on the queue before re: Proposals 3 and 4
16:28:25 <ninja> ack npdoty
16:28:35 <vinay> ... Proposal 4 suggests the possibility of responding to the server using the TPE saying I'm responding to 3rd party rules
16:28:43 <vinay> ... and the TPE might have removed that possibility
16:28:44 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:28:51 <vinay> ... instead, the first party can indicate 'not tracking'
16:28:52 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
16:29:01 <vinay> ... so may need to change the example
16:29:08 <ninja> +1 to npdoty
16:29:42 <vinay> ... it could just be an example
16:29:50 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:29:52 <vinay> Justin: Useful to take that to the mailing list
16:30:06 <Chris_M> fielding, it seems ambiguous in so much as it doesn't specifically give first party collection privilege to the SP in the case where the SP is collecting on behalf of the 1P (or am I reading in wrong?)
16:30:10 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
16:30:22 <npdoty> I'll send that option (an Example of responding N as a first party) to the mailing list
16:30:47 <vinay> Justin: Does anyone still support John Simpson's (and possibly Alan Chapell's) proposal?
16:31:14 <fielding> agree with npdoty … a first party would respond with "N" if it does not collect user activity data across multiple distinct contexts
16:31:45 <vinay> ... Chris P has made the point that DNT isn't meant to solve all issues and this issue isn't really encompassed to address data brokers.  but others have disagreed.
16:31:48 <justin> q?
16:31:58 <kulick> +q
16:32:00 <ninja> vinay, I could take over scribing for agenda item 3, if you want
16:32:05 <vinay> ... mostly designed to get this issue back in our heads
16:32:10 <vinay> Sure Ninja, that'd be great!
16:32:20 <justin> ack brad
16:32:22 <justin> ack kul
16:32:28 <vinay> Justin: will send this issue back to the mailing list to try to get this back on people's mind for further discussion
16:32:44 <vinay> Brad: DNT is meant as a way to let users signify what their tracking preference is within one location
16:33:00 <vinay> ... in a first party setting, the user has other mechanisms to indicate their preference with 1st parties.
16:33:04 <Chris_M> JackHobaugh, see private query
16:33:25 <vinay> ... I would propose we would remove the 'append' language as users already have other mechanisms to communicate with the first party (in which they have a direct relationship with)
16:34:19 <npdoty> (I thought Brad doesn't mean to remove it, but instead not to add Data Append restrictions)
16:34:25 <vinay> Justin: Just to confirm, you're suggesting to remove the append language entirely because the user has other mechanisms for first party
16:34:29 <vinay> Brad will repeat...
16:34:52 <vinay> Brad: user has a mechanism to match where the data collection is occurring
16:35:01 <vinay> ... in a first paryt context, they understand who is collecting the dat
16:35:02 <vinay> a
16:35:11 <vinay> ... has access to that party's privacy policy
16:35:26 <vinay> ... its situations in the third party context where the user may not necessarily know who is collecting the data
16:35:34 <vinay> ... and so the DNT signal makes sense in that regard
16:35:34 <moneill2> +q
16:35:53 <fielding> Chris_M, the way that collect is defined means that the contractee (e.g., first party) is doing the collection when it uses a service provider to receive the data on its behalf, since the contractee is the one controlling the data. Hence, saying the SP collects the data would be a contradiction. That's why it says the SP receives the data on behalf of the contractee.
16:36:05 <vinay> ... but as it relates to a first party, the user would have access via the first party's privacy policy to see how the company may share that data
16:36:14 <justin> q?
16:36:20 <justin> ack mo
16:37:37 <kulick> +q
16:37:40 <susanisrael> i think we already addressed the case that Mike is now discussing, when we included a prohibition on first parties' providing to third parties for their own use data that those third parties would otherwise be prohibited from collecting.
16:37:43 <vinay> moneill: what worries me about the sharing is that people go around blocking third party cookie blocking technology...  when we talk about sharing, you don't want to get into situations where companies can get around technologies
16:37:53 <vinay> <I'm not really sure what Mike said.. I didn't understand it>
16:38:11 <Chris_M> fielding, thanks for the clarification... this makes sense in that context.  Where is the "collect" defined?
16:38:12 <npdoty> susanisrael, is it still covered by vinay's version of that text?
16:38:23 <vinay> Justin: I think we're all worried about the work-around situation.  But do you think the existing language isn't clear enough?
16:38:28 <susanisrael> Let me re-read vinay's version
16:38:52 <fielding> Chris_M, defined in http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#terminology
16:39:15 <vinay> Justin: I think we all agree that people shouldn't be using work arounds to allow tracking
16:39:16 <npdoty> moneill2: concerned about first-party sites that will pass first-party cookie unique identifiers to their third parties (perhaps through query strings, etc.) to work around user blocking or their DNT preference
16:39:22 <vinay> ... do you think we need more language to make it clear?
16:39:54 <vinay> Mike: Would lean towards John S or Rigo's language
16:40:01 <vinay> Justin: Would love ideas to merge proposals
16:40:16 <justin> q?
16:40:28 <npdoty> ack kulick
16:41:01 <vinay> Brad: What I'm getting at is that the DNT signal is meant to address that users have the appropriate amount of transparency and control over who is using their data.  In a first party setting, its more obvious to the user than in a third party setting.
16:41:17 <vinay> ANd, the first party generally has other mechanisms giving the user controls over how the first party uses data
16:41:34 <vinay> and the DNT signal is overstepping as it is meant to control 3rd party data collection/use
16:42:47 <ninja> zakim, who is here?
16:42:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see Carl_Cargill, schunter, Ninja (muted), Chris_M, JackHobaugh, eberkower (muted), Peder_Magee, Chris_Pedigo, WaltMichel, Fielding, kulick, vinay, [CDT], npdoty,
16:42:51 <vinay> Mike: Goes to the core (and highlights the can of worms).  DNT is a clearer way to express intention of tracking
16:42:51 <Zakim> ... moneill2, hefferjr, RichardWeaver, adrianba (muted), Susan_Israel, +1.202.370.aaee, rvaneijk
16:42:51 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin
16:42:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see vincent, robsherman, susanisrael, kj, Richard_comScore, magee, kulick, moneill2, vinay, adrianba, ChrisPedigoOPA, justin, fielding, eberkower, npdoty, WaltMichel,
16:42:51 <Zakim> ... JackHobaugh, Chris_M, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, walter, hober, trackbot, wseltzer
16:42:59 <vinay> than having a whole set of opt out cookies within different domains
16:43:04 <kulick> i would dispute that it is "clearer"
16:43:14 <vinay> Chris P: I don't think Brad was talking about the DAA adchoices program
16:43:16 <kulick> +q
16:43:29 <vinay> ... instead, first parties offer their own tools within the first party relationship.  that's not part of the DAA program
16:43:29 <npdoty> ack kulick
16:43:30 <justin> ack kul
16:43:37 <vinay> Brad: Correct -- wasn't talking about the DAA program
16:43:40 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:43:48 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:43:51 <npdoty> I think maybe there was ambiguity about the phrase "opt-out cookies"
16:44:12 <rvaneijk> the problem though with 1st party opt out, is that it is not standardized !
16:44:49 <robsherman> zakim, aaee is robsherman
16:44:49 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
16:45:06 <rvaneijk> we need text on data append, and on first party sharing
16:45:17 <vinay> Brad: When first parties provide a rich, more detailed opt out program in which it has a dialogue with a consumer, it generally is seen as more positive for the user experience/control
16:45:54 <Zakim> +rvaneijk.a
16:45:59 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:46:04 <vinay> Justin: Given the definition of tracking, it seems like that itself limits how these issues may apply.  But if others want to make an argument, please do
16:46:06 <WilliamPenn14> WilliamPenn14 has joined #DNT
16:46:18 <justin> q?
16:46:23 <vinay> ... look at John's language and make suggestions, tweak it, etc.  Lets spend some time on the mailing list working out some of the issues
16:46:27 <npdoty> I think maybe we're confused about whether we're talking about limits on collection in the first-party context, or how choices are presented in a first-party context about later third-party collection/use
16:46:31 <vinay> scribenick: ninja
16:46:36 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 3
16:46:36 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Context Separation (ISSUE-219: Context Separation - Limitations on use in a 3rd party context of data collected in a 1st party context)" taken up [from ninja]
16:46:37 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Limitations_on_use_in_Third_Party_Context
16:46:44 <kulick> why does 1st party opt-out have to be standardized? Having a direct knowledge and transparency of your data is being used by a first party should be adequate... we shouldnt be overly prescriptive in this area
16:47:09 <ninja> justin: Next issue is on using first party data in another (third party) context
16:48:37 <ninja> ... Large first parties like Yahoo! operate as first party as well as third party. Question is whether and in which way they can use the first party data and combine data across contexts.
16:49:04 <ninja> ... *walking us through the proposals on the wiki page*
16:50:27 <npdoty> right, I think walter's proposal captures Alan's intent, as a clearer prohibition
16:50:54 <ninja> ... Alan Chapell's proposal would prohibit using first party data across contexts. Yanni's proposal would allow the use with an requirement of prominent branding. Walter's proposal would be similar to Alan's.
16:50:57 <justin> q?
16:51:02 <robsherman> +q
16:51:05 <moneill2> +q
16:51:12 <justin> ack robs
16:51:40 <ninja> ... Robsherman: I wonder if we have moved past that question with our definition of tracking.
16:51:44 <npdoty> "Tracking is the collection of data regarding a particular user's activity across multiple distinct contexts and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred."
16:52:09 <ninja> ... This is about is it permit table to use data which is not tracking data in third party context.
16:52:35 <kulick> +1 to rob's comments
16:52:57 <ninja> .... It is important to differentiate between previously permitted non-tracking data or collecting new behavioral data.
16:53:25 <Zakim> +vincent
16:53:39 <npdoty> does "outside the context in which it occurred" cover cases like what robsherman suggested?
16:53:58 <justin> ?
16:54:00 <justin> q?
16:54:01 <justin> ack mo
16:55:05 <ninja> Moneill2: If you allow third parties to utilize unique identifiers from first parties that would not be transparent to the user
16:55:13 <ninja> ... and undermine the standard.
16:55:45 <ninja> justin: It must not take the users by surprise. What about the middle ground proposal from Yanni?
16:56:04 <ninja> ... It requires common branding to give the user transparency.
16:56:17 <kulick> seems like this is a case where ad choices would suffice
16:56:53 <moneill2> +q
16:57:29 <ninja> robsherman: Any company who is doing this would be interested in being transparent to their users. Prominent branding may not be a solution in all cases.
16:58:08 <Zakim> -Ninja
16:58:10 <kulick> +q
16:58:22 <justin> ack mo
16:58:23 <ninja> Moneill2: The UGE would cover users that gave consent for tracking. Regarding users who send DNT;1
16:58:24 <robsherman> But that's the point -- use of previously collected data is not tracking, and the fact that previously collected data is used doesn't necessarily mean that tracking is occurring.
16:58:30 <ninja> zakim, call ninja-office
16:58:30 <Zakim> ok, ninja; the call is being made
16:58:32 <Zakim> +Ninja
16:58:41 <justin> ack kul
16:59:05 <ninja> Sorry, moneill2, missed part of your statement
16:59:27 <npdoty> q+
17:00:20 <moneill2> I was saying user agreement for append is best ensured by use of UGE, rather than assumptions about visibility
17:00:57 <rvaneijk> I concur with Mike on ensuring append through the use of the UGE.
17:00:59 <ninja> kulick: justin: I still can see users getting confused by personalization while sending DNT;1. Brad?
17:01:11 <justin> ack npd
17:01:40 <npdoty> " Tracking is the collection of data regarding a particular user's activity across multiple distinct contexts and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred. "
17:02:25 <ninja> kulick: We should be careful with the requirements we put up. First parties collected this data with the knowledge of the users and in compliance with the spec.
17:02:52 <kulick> q+
17:02:56 <justin> q?
17:03:09 <ninja> npdoty: Our tracking definition is limited to the context it occurred in. Taking it outside of this context may not be covered anymore.
17:03:29 <npdoty> q+
17:03:44 <justin> ack npd
17:03:57 <Zakim> -schunter
17:04:02 <ninja> kulick: Information specifically provided in first party context should be treated differently.
17:04:11 <fielding> huh?
17:04:16 <justin> ack kul
17:04:46 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
17:05:05 <ninja> justin: May need more time to wrap my head around that.
17:05:24 <justin> q?
17:06:03 <npdoty> if we intend the tracking definition to only cover subsequent use of data that was from the combination of activity on multiple sites, then maybe we should remove or clarify "outside the context in which it occurred" from the Tracking definition.
17:06:10 <kulick> ninja, I think that scribing of my comments doesnt capture my comments exactly... (I understand that capturing comments realtime isnt perfect, I just adding this since this is on the record)
17:06:15 <ninja> ... Will continue to discuss this in the following weeks. Any more thoughts for today?
17:06:17 <fielding> I was distracted, but no
17:06:54 <ninja> ChrisPedigo: Can you give us a sense of how much longer it will take to get through the issues?
17:06:59 <npdoty> fielding, which are you responding to?
17:07:18 <fielding> we don't need to change the definition of tracking
17:07:41 <npdoty> fielding, and did you agree with robsherman's interpretation?
17:07:42 <rvaneijk> Changing the definition of tracking may shake the whole exercise. That issue is closed, right?
17:07:48 <ninja> justin: Can give you a rough estimate. There are a bunch of issues that are raised or open that don't seem controversial. I will suggest batch closing to the group probably next week.
17:08:16 <npdoty> rvaneijk, I tend to agree, I was just noting that we might want to clarify if a particular clause was unnecessary
17:08:21 <fielding> I missed his interpretation … probably not
17:08:25 <ninja> ... And we have about seven or eight more difficult issues to take up. For example De-identification.
17:08:36 <ninja> ... That may take us until summer.
17:08:59 <ninja> ... Maybe August. But we make good progress and are on track.
17:09:33 <fielding> "use of previously collected data is not tracking" -> nonsense
17:09:41 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:09:42 <Zakim> -vincent
17:09:44 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:09:48 <Zakim> -Chris_M
17:09:49 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:09:50 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:09:51 <Zakim> -[CDT]
17:09:51 <ninja> justin: Adjourned
17:09:52 <Zakim> -kulick
17:09:52 <Zakim> -Carl_Cargill
17:09:54 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:09:54 <Zakim> -vinay
17:09:56 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:09:56 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
17:09:57 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:09:57 <Zakim> -Ninja
17:09:58 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:10:00 <Zakim> -rvaneijk.a
17:10:04 <Zakim> -Susan_Israel
17:10:15 <Zakim> -JackHobaugh
17:10:18 <npdoty> +1, thanks vinay and ninja for scribing
17:10:21 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:10:22 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:10:22 <Zakim> Attendees were Carl_Cargill, schunter, Ninja, Amy_Colando, Chris_M, +1.303.949.aaaa, JackHobaugh, +31.65.275.aabb, eberkower, Peder_Magee, Chris_Pedigo, WaltMichel, Fielding,
17:10:22 <Zakim> ... kulick, rvaneijk, +1.917.934.aacc, vinay, justin, npdoty, moneill2, hefferjr, RichardWeaver, +1.425.614.aadd, adrianba, Susan_Israel, +1.202.370.aaee, robsherman, vincent
17:10:33 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:10:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/21-dnt-minutes.html npdoty