RE: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6

JC, interesting observation. Let me coin another view. Can FB be considered a first party, taking into account it is all about Macy's in this context.

RobvE

JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com> 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<mailto: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<http://blurryedge.com>]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:21 PM
>To: Rob Sherman
>Cc: Justin Brookman;
>public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:justin@cdt.org>>
>Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:33 PM
>To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>"
><public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6
>Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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.org<mailto:justin@cdt.org>http://www.cdt.org<http://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<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>
>Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:26 PM
>To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net<mailto:peter@peterswire.net>>,
>"public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> WG"
><public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Call March 6
>Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<file:///\\sip\zakim@voip.w3.org>
>Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
>IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://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<http://www.peterswire.net/>
>
>
>
>Professor Peter P. Swire
>C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>    Ohio State University
>240.994.4142
>www.peterswire.net<http://www.peterswire.net/>