Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6

The Facebook issue requires serious review especially. It cannot be given a First party pass under DNT.

 It would be useful for Facebook to provide use cases where it has business relationships with brands and/or its marketing partners, to understand the data gathering/profiling regime a user (unknowingly) confronts.


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:35 PM, JC Cannon wrote:

> I feel that is a different issue. Can Macy’s be considered a first party even though they are hosted on FB?
>  
> JC
>  
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:33 PM
> To: JC Cannon
> Cc: Lauren Gelman; Rob Sherman; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6
>  
> Isn't the issue whether Facebook could share all of the data it has gathered elsewhere on the Facebook  platform with Macy's?
>  
>  
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 4:24 PM, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Is it people’s opinion that if I go to a vendor page on FB such as https://www.facebook.com/Macys, the user’s interaction with the page should be treated as third party? As a consumer that would not seem practical to me. I would feel that I’m interacting with Macy’s. If I left a message I would hope that the people at Macy’s could retrieve it. Am I missing something?
>  
> Thanks,
> JC
>  
>  
> From: Lauren Gelman [mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:21 PM
> To: Rob Sherman
> Cc: Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6
>  
>  
> Hi Rob.  I think that example streaming and example social are the First Parties.   I think if Streaming and Social are able to offer to transform Sports into a First Party just by offering  /Sports and two logos on the page, it will eat the rule.
>  
> Of course, my opinion on this is based on the HUGELY BROAD definition of First Parties. I'd be happy with a solution that significantly narrowed that definition and maybe left a little wiggle room here to entertain the co-branding exception. 
>  
> [Maybe someone can count how many entities YouTube.com/Fox could share with??]
>  
> Lauren Gelman
> @laurengelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512
>  
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Rob Sherman wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Justin.  When we discussed this in the group, as I recall Aleecia invited anyone who was interested in working on improving my text proposal to do so.  Rigo was the only person who volunteered, and we worked to address his concerns.  I think most of us have a roughly similar idea about what we mean in the multiple first parties scenario — particularly, my proposal was not intended to suggest that branding or the presence of a privacy policy alone creates a first party, or, to Lauren's point, a situation in which a single entity operates a website and simply puts the logos of a few others on it, making each of them a first party.  If my proposal reads in a way that is inconsistent with that, we should fix it.  
>  
> If anyone wants to help work on this text, please reach out off-list and we'll work together to get it right.
>  
> Rob Sherman
> Facebook | Manager, Privacy and Public Policy
> 1155 F Street, NW Suite 475 | Washington, DC 20004
> office 202.370.5147 | mobile 202.257.3901
>  
> From: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:33 PM
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:34 PM
>  
> I previously objected to this exception as too expansive and vague; here is what I wrote on this in September:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0259.html
> 
> I do not believe the November text sufficiently addresses my concerns.  "Branding" and/or "the presence of privacy policies" should not be sufficient to turn an otherwise third party into a first.  I have previously argued for one first party per interaction.  I could live with language that allows for multiple first parties in unique scenarios, but this remains an exception that could swallow the rule.
> 
> 
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> tel 202.407.8812
> justin@cdt.orghttp://www.cdt.org
> @JustinBrookman
> @CenDemTech
> On 3/5/2013 4:13 PM, Rob Sherman wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>  
> Sorry for the confusion on ACTION-273 / ISSUE-181.  The text that we'll be discussing was circulated in November of last year (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0075.html), and I'm not proposing to change the text from what was previously circulated.  We had a discussion about this on our weekly call.  I think we worked through questions that were raised but didn't actually close the issue, and the issue didn't get brought back to the agenda in subsequent calls.  So the purpose of the agenda item tomorrow is to give us an opportunity to resolve this.
>  
> Peter also asked me to look into how, if at all, the approach we're taking here would be informed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in the United States.  We can talk about that as well but it does not change the text that people weighed in on in November.
>  
> I hope this clarifies the agenda item.
>  
> Rob
>  
> Rob Sherman
> Facebook | Manager, Privacy and Public Policy
> 1155 F Street, NW Suite 475 | Washington, DC 20004
> office 202.370.5147 | mobile 202.257.3901
>  
> From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
> Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:26 PM
> To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:27 PM
>  
> Peter,
> 
> I have 3 procedural questions: 
> 
> Action 273 is pending review, however the revised text has not been circulated to the list. I think it is fair to leave at least 1 week between text circulation on the mailing list and discussing it in the plenairy weekly calls to allow for discussion on the list and to allow for the need to discuss text internally before taking an official position in a discussion. Is it possible to accomodate this?
> 
> Likewise is action 368 with status open, and no text circulated. Ergo, no time/chance to prepare the discussion in time.
> 
> Lastly, with regards to apparently scheduled discussions (eg . related append issues to action 368). I may have overlooked a URL, but if there are items planned ahead, it would be good to know. Please send a URL, 
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:
> Wednesday call March 6, 2013
>  
> ---------------------------
> Administrative
>  
> Chair:  Peter Swire
> ---------------------------
>  
> 1.  Confirmation of scribe – glad to accept volunteer in advance
>  
> 2.  Offline-caller-identification: 
> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of  time. If you are not comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number, please email your name and phone number to npdoty@w3.org. We want to reduce (in fact, eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
>  
>  
> 3. Update on next face-to-face.
>  
> ---------------------------
> TPE: Matthias Schunter 
> ---------------------------
>  
>  
> 4.   TPE matters (15 minutes)
>  
> ---------------------------
>  
> Discuss Assigned Compliance Actions
>  
> ---------------------------
>  
> 5.  Action 273 (Rob Sherman).  Rob has updated text for multiple first parties.  Discussion will include reference to “joint marketing” under Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
>  
>  
> 6. Action 368 (Chris Pedigo), update “service provider” or “data processor” definition.  (Discussion of related “append” issue is scheduled to occur in two weeks).
>  
>  
> 7. Action 371 (Dan Auerbach).  Dan has circulated proposed text and non-normative language.
>  
> 8.  Issue 10, definition of “first party.”  Text from the editors, with focus on clarity of writing rather than major discussion on scope.
>  
>  
> 9. If time, review of other outstanding assigned actions. 
>  
> ---------------------------
>  
> 10.  Announce next meeting & adjourn
>  
>  
> ================ Infrastructure =================
>  
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
> IRC Chat: irc.w3.org, port 6665, #dnt
>  
> *****
>  
> *****
>  
>  
>  
> Professor Peter P. Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>     Ohio State University
> 240.994.4142
> www.peterswire.net
>  
>  
>  
> Professor Peter P. Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>     Ohio State University
> 240.994.4142
> www.peterswire.net
>  
>