Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

Right, I think I understand you now.  I think that would be a perverse reading of context --- and not one that any working group participant would want --- but we can make that more clear.  I think Roy's notion is that there are *millions* of different contexts out there, and DNT is a request that servers not merge data across those contexts.

I think that most participants would be willing to offer clarifying language on at least that point, but the harder question is what other guidance we want to add.  I think Roy's language is a good starting point, but I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

On Dec 18, 2013, at 2:25 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> The point I made on the call I will put here just for the record.
> 
> We have, in the past, used context to distinguish “first party” and “third party” contexts, i.e. there are only two contexts.  (Well, perhaps also service-provider acting for 1st or 3rd).
> 
> If someone reads this definition of tracking and there is NO definition of context, they might understand
> 
> "the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred”
> 
> as allowing data collected in “a third party context” and then used or shared also in a “third party context” as staying in the same context, and not tracking.  This is not what Roy writes below or what we intend, but, without a definition, it could be misunderstood that way.
> 
> 
> On Dec 18, 2013, at 10:37 , Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
>> 
>> Raised by: Justin Brookman
>> On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
>> 
>> The definition of tracking that was adopted by the group includes a concept of "context" that some members have asked that the text define more clearly.
>> 
>> Roy Fielding was the author of this definition, and included this language on context in the Call for Objections poll:
>> 
>> The above definition also depends on there being a definition of context that bounds a scope of user activity, though it is not dependent on any particular definition of that term. For example, something along the lines of: "For the purpose of this definition, a context is a set of resources that share the same data controller, same privacy policy, and a common branding, such that a user would expect that data collected by one of those resources is available to all other resources within the same context."
>> 
>> Alternatively, the group might decide that the common sense meaning of context is sufficient, as it more closely approximates a user's general intent in turning on the Do Not Track signal.
>> 
>> We will continue discussion of this topic on the January 8th call, but we encourage discussion of these (and other) ideas on the list in the meantime.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 20:36:52 UTC