Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference -- 25 Sep 2013

<trackbot> Date: 25 September 2013

<lsheena> thanks

<jchester2> Is this the DAA's DNT call or WC3's. I am getting lost with all the dueling DNT's going on!

<Brooks> 678 is Brooks

<FPFJoeN> 202587 4870 is FPFJOeN

<matt> 212-231-xxxx is matt haies

<npdoty> scribenick: ninjamarnau

schunter: sent agenda few days ago. Any comments?

<wseltzer> [agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0123.html ]

Fine-tuning the plan

<Ari> 650-595 is Ari from Rocket Fuel

schunter: now fine tuning of the plan. Some members asked for 2 additional weeks for some issues

<dsinger> what do you mean by "all the documentation"? is that all the CPs that might be needed

schunter: The deadline for some very old issues stays the same. October 2nd

<JackHobaugh> Yes, when are counter proposals due?

ndoty: schunter dropped. Who is on the queue

<jchester2> So would I because much more information is required on some of these issues.

<moneill2> zakim aaqq is me

susanisrael: I'd like to understand what is expected by October 2nd

<wseltzer> Documentation

<dsinger> what do you mean by "documentation is finalized"?

<dsinger> plan is here, right? http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/1309-plan.html

<wseltzer> dsinger, yes

schunter: All issues need to be named then. On October 2nd we will ask for additional change proposals on these issues. October 2nd is an issue freeze

<JackHobaugh> +q

<jchester2> yes, spell out the documentation.

susanisrael: I don't know what you mean by documentation

<npdoty> I think the text of change proposals (with rationale), as opposed to names of issues

schunter: description, one change proposal at least, and the rational why this is an issue

<justin> Yes, that's the plan, but I don't believe it reflects the latest revision (full texts/rationales on a few long-standing issues by October 2)

schunter: I can try to make this mor clear

<dsinger> so, documentation means that the issue is explained, the rationale, and so on, and at least one CP is proposed, but it remains open to other CPs

<dsinger> ?

dwainberg: Same concern as susanisrael. Do you accept change proposals for the old issues after October 2nd?

<npdoty> the plan suggests that when taking up each issue we'll ask for counter-proposals if necessary (or maybe we'll consolidate proposals, etc.)

schunter: yes, we will ask for change proposals after October 2nd. On issue by issue basis

<justin> Yes, dwainberg, we will send a new email later today.

dwainber: please write an email with details. This multitude of deadlines is confusing.
... please explain the meaning of poll. this is crucial for how to answer

<dsinger> …suspects we are trying to identify which ways forward are 'viable' (if any), and if several are, which might be preferred (least opposition etc.)

schunter: This is not a decision poll. We will analyse and compile the input and forward it to the w3c chair

<jchester2> Justin: I hope there isnt a co-chair always gets into trouble disease!

<justin> jchester2, I'm pretty sure it's part of the job :(

JackHobaugh: Question on the change history you put up
... subset of issues for October 2nd. There is quite a lot of material. What else do you expect.

<jeff> +1 to what Justin said

<schunter> We should double check whether these issues already satisfy our quality criteria. If yes, we should say something like "no further work is needed here".

justin: You have a point. This is why we chose these issues. They do not necessarily need much more documentation until Oct 2nd. So we can soon start working on them.

<schunter> q

justin: we don't make a decision. we will then start the discussion.

schunter: After Oct. 2nd issue freeze. But time to work on those raised and open issues.

Our perspective on how to shape change proposals

schunter: What kind of change proposals do we expect
... I believe the more balanced a change proposal is, the more successful it will be
... we encourage you to propose consent change proposals
... we also expect a lot of merging of different change proposals
... this will be a lot of work. But we consider it as the most promising way to reach consensus.

Publication of revised Working Draft on October 01

schunter: Now item no 5. We agreed to publish the next version of the working draft on Oct. 1st
... we started implementing additional suggestions in the draft.
... I ask for additional editorial changes

<justin> Was npdoty mainitaing a separate list of editorial changes?

schunter: fundamental issues get pushed into the issues list

<schunter> I can mute the train (including myself ;-)

ndoty. Yes. I do have a list of editorial changes.

schunter: Please send editorial changes on the list.

<justin> Agreed, vinay's editorial suggestions were very productive.

<justin> npdoty, is there a public wiki where we can see proposed editorial changes?

susanisrael: Nick said these editorial changes that have been previously submitted. Do we need to resubmit them?

<dsinger> …thinks it would be good to create action items (as I did for the Vinay message) for the editors so it's clear what the editors need to do. "editors to implement CP3 for issue X"

<johnsimpson> will we see a proposed working draft and be able to react to it before it is published?

npdoty: I will communicate it to the group when we worked through this list. You then can point us to an issue we have missed.

<npdoty> justin, I think you're probably right, I should have a wiki list of editorial issues

<johnsimpson> so we will see proposed WD before it is published, right?

schunter: two good suggestions: list of editorial changes. And freeze the weekend before and send the changed draft to the group

<npdoty> ACTION: doty to create wiki list of editorial issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-431 - Create wiki list of editorial issues [on Nick Doty - due 2013-10-02].

<WileyS> One of the core questions was would "options under consideration" be added back to the draft?

schunter: (missed the question of johnsimpson)

<npdoty> ACTION: west to implement editorial changes on Compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-432 - Implement editorial changes on compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) [on Heather West - due 2013-10-02].

schinter: don't expect fundamental changes. We should keep it as editorial changes.

<npdoty> action-431 due today

<trackbot> Set action-431 Create wiki list of editorial issues due date to 2013-09-25.

<WileyS> Only providing a single option provides a false expectation that the working group is "leaning towards" that outcome. I'm not sure everyone feels that is a far representation.

<npdoty> action-432 due friday

<trackbot> Set action-432 Implement editorial changes on compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) due date to 2013-09-27.

<dsinger> guys, editorials should be easy. if anyone disagrees that it's editorial, we revert and an issue can be made. if the edit is unsatisfactory, keep nagging the editors to do better.

<dsinger> action-432?

<trackbot> action-432 -- Heather West to Implement editorial changes on compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) -- due 2013-09-27 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/432

<WileyS> Thank you - I agree with at least pointing to the issue tracker within the document

<npdoty> we have tried to note (in bold) in the status of the document that reviewers should be looking at the change proposals as well, because the current text doesn't represent a preference of the group

<WileyS> This provides a pathway to the options under consideration

<WileyS> +1

<npdoty> yes, we always point to the issue list and to the list of change proposals

schinter: The fundamental issues should be added within the next two months.

<npdoty> dsinger, yes, my action 431 to compile the list is due today :)

<justin> (Many of which are duplicative)

WileyS: We had an initial set of issues where we know text will come.
... this could be integrated in the draft. To give a more clear image of where the WG stands at this moment

<npdoty> I believe we have issue pointers in the draft to that list of 24 or whatever it is

<dsinger> I cannot, I go to a wedding tomorrow

<schunter> Does one of the editors have time to include issue pointers to the existing issues into the document?

<justin> I could probably do it on the flight back. I think it's mostly in there now, but can make sure.

<schunter> ok.

<hwest> I may be able to put some time in on Friday, but can't commit to getting them all in there - quite a task, I think

npdoty: I think you are asking about issue pointers in the new draft
... I will make sure these are integrated before publishing

<wseltzer> [note that the ISSUEs are positioned by JavaScript, so reading with NoScript, you don't see them ]

<justin> Fair point.

<susanisrael> * agree that Nick is awesome

<WileyS> -q

<npdoty> [ wseltzer, in the Public Working Draft, they're rendered in static html ]

Survey of newly raised issues

schunter: item no 6. Option to now stand up to the group and explain a new issue and its rationale

<vinay> Yep

npdoty: vinay has sent a lot. most were editorial
... we added these change proposals to the wiki. vinay you want to explain?

<schunter> Qß

<npdoty> npdoty: awesome that we'll be able to consolidate with other proposals

Review of Status of ISSUE-10

<wseltzer> ISSUE-10?

<trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- What is a first party? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10

<justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions

schunter: Closer look at status on issue 10. We want to reach consensus or get to clear alternatives

justin: we have discussed this issue a lot. What is a (first) party. productive discussion on the list
... roy and walter had a productive discussion on visibility

<dwainberg> ok

justin: please take a look at roy's language proposal
... 1. discoverability. Does it makes sense to require a link from each page
... or rather dynamic in the privacy policy

<jchester2> This would need to be tested to ensure meaningful discoverability. +1

<jchester2> +q

is easily discoverable a possible compromise?

<WileyS> Okay with a link from the Privacy Policy -AND- a programmatic set URI location for this as well

<dsinger> isn't the well-known resource 'easily discoverable'? and it doesn't impact visual design

<justin> Thanks, WileyS

<susanisrael> I believe Amy Colando previously proposed putting a link in the privacy policy, There may be a change proposal.

<WileyS> Does anyone disagree? Adding a link in the Privacy policy -AND- allowing for a well-known URI address for this information?

jchester2: people have to know and understand the relationships. at the moment it is not designed this way. privacy policies don't work.

<justin> Yes, susanisrael, I meant to get to that.

<susanisrael> Justin, thanks.

jchester2: discoverability needs to be designed and tested with real users.

<fielding> +q

jchester: we need to set up a team, independent academics, to figure out how to convey this information

sorry, this was meant as jchester's quote

<WileyS> Won't the academic approach add many months to the timeline to determine this single issue? If we do this for each issue we're about 5 years away from DNT v1. :-)

fielding: the language I suggested does not say how to do it.

<jchester2> Let's test using how a user can address what happens with Adobe Audience mamager, for example

fielding: this depends on who and how knowledgeable the user is.

<npdoty> WileyS, yeah, postponing on research would be harmful for the schedule. maybe we could add this as a condition of Last Call: to do tests of implementation once we have them

<justin> WileyS, don't even!

<npdoty> jchester2, if the concern is over usability testing of implementations, we could start on a plan now for doing the testing once we reach Last Call or a Call for Implementations

<jchester2> We have a responsibility to global Internet users to create the best effective approach to deliver a DNT system.

<dsinger> …agrees with Roy that mandating visual design is beyond our scope, but that Privacy Policy + WKR is good

<jchester2> Nick. I agree we should start a plan for testing all this. We should pull together an international team of experts

<justin> susan?

<npdoty> scribenick: ChrisPedigoOPA

<susanisrael> nick, I can scribe if you want

<npdoty> scribenick: susanisrael

<schunter> Thanks to Ninja for scribing!"

chris pedigo: would like additional flexibility for companies to talk about actual affiliates or brands. there are different ways to education users

<fielding> I forgot to clarify also: if we want to restrict the Oct 1 publication to purely editorial changes, then we can fix the definition as I described and add the must-link-from-every-page requirement to the section on First Party.

<ninjamarnau_> thanks susanisrael. You want me to take over again?

justin: we will get to david w's proposal. An additional idea we had talked about was that there will probably not be multiple first parties. Roy had objections on 3 grounds.

<WileyS> Multiple 1st party will need to be supported - the question is the bar of disclosure / visibility to users.

justin: .....one was "service providers." another was that people are trying to interact with more than one resource at once. (search on fried bunnies example from roy's email's). Roy--is the first concern or the second

more important...

[sorry-gap in scribing] roy: users do try to interact with more than one party. ex. when you hit a link on google.com

justin: good example. can you put into change proposal? david also had a different definition of party. describe?

<jchester2> Can we spend some time talking about this multiple first party issue? I am concerned that given the cross platform user tracking, the integration of wide ranging partners etc, that a huge privacy loophole is being created.

<dsinger> issue-10?

<trackbot> issue-10 -- What is a first party? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10

davidwainberg: my email explained it. Main point was that ownership on its own is not a great factor for judging/crafting a privacy policy around. I'd rather see something that makes more sense for privacy and is more equitable for competition

<Chapell> dwainberg: ownership on its own is not a great factor for judging a privacy policy - and he'd rather see somethign that makes more sense for privacy and is more equitable for competition.

justin: so if you go to ny times and ad network on site, and ad networks on site. They and other publishers are all iab members. would they all be one party?

<dsinger> is this the email we are discussing? <http://www.w3.org/mid/5241BF12.3030106@appnexus.com>

<schunter> What is the alternative to "ownership" that david proposes?

davidwainberg: looking at ownership alone does not mean user understands who that is or what policies apply. so that's a poor measure for privacy.

<npdoty> justin, dsinger, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0128.html

<dsinger> oh. try http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0128.html

<jchester2> +q

dwainberg: common set of rules is better for privacy.
... don't know whether saying all third parties are iab members would be adequate.

<WileyS> 'common ownership and common control' - 'control' here implies the same privacy structure represented to users

<npdoty> I thought ownership was one condition, but not the entire set of conditions, for being a party which shares data with its affiliates

justin: with your criticism of ownership test you are echoing some of jeff's concerns about discoverability. it's a novel concept
... can you try to put this into normative text with the argumentation around it.

<dsinger> +1 to Shane: there are two problems here; is this 'one responsibility' (common owner) and is there 'a single set of rules'? (common policy)

<Chapell> @wileys - we may need a better definition of common control

+1 to dsinger

justin: it sounded like you weren't entirely clear yourself about how parties should be treated in that context. pls provide normative text by oct 2

jeffchester2: haven't been on list but what is multiple first party concept? need to see that in writing so we can analyze it. Are people proposing that here, that there would be multiple first parties in a transaction.

<WileyS> Jeff - there are limited situations where more than one first party could exist - att.yahoo.com

<npdoty> jchester2, there is a paragraph on multiple first parties in the draft, if you want to look at concrete text: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party

justin: att-yahoo example is one instance

<fielding> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0102.html

<WileyS> Considerable amount of text here already

<WileyS> I have already

jeffchester2: i want to see it in writing, because there are chaning relationships/further integration, want to understand what people supporting this are asking for so we understand what it means.

<fielding> google.com

jeffchester2: i want to take this offline, but we are all pressed and i would like to have real examples. information is vague and indecipherable and a possible huge loophole.

<fielding> It's a one paragraph example, based on common search services.

justin: share concerns but one example i had not previously considered is google search results

jeffchester2: we have to think about all the products and examples.
... paid or organic search?

fielding: does not matter

<npdoty> I think Rob Sherman's emails from several months ago might provide detailed examples of platforms that host other content (which is where we got text about co-branding, etc.)

jeffchester2: does, in terms of company's ability to further its data collection goals.

fielding: normal search results from google have links back to google.

<justin> I remember jmayer (pour some out) also used brands on Tumblr as an example.

<hwest> Isn't that a first party interaction when they click?

<WileyS> Wouldn't the "click" represent a "meaningful interaction" thus moving what would have been a 3rd party on that page into the 1st party role? I think we already handle this issue.

fielding: we have to decide whether user is interacting with google or final destination of link. It's reasonable to consider this as an example where user is aware of google and the final destination.

<WileyS> Heather +1 (great minds think alike :-) )

<moneill2> all the user wants is not to be tracked - by anyone (if they have set DNT)

jeffchester2: this discussion stretches reality in terms of average user experience.

<ChrisPedigoOPA> +1 to WileyS

matthias: no one ever said that in this scenario the other party should be considered first party. all google knows in first party context is that user clicked link, then the other party is first party.....

<justin> jchester2, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about an exception that swallows the rule. Any normative text should absolutely be scrutinized with that in mind (I think I'm allowed to say that as chair :) )

jeffchester2: i need to understand data sharing in this arrangement when dnt is in effect.

<WileyS> moneill2 - some users may have that intent but I don't believe you can speak for all users who use DNT today. Its up to this group to define what DNT means and then help users understand how this works. If users want something more, they always have other options available to them.

justin: issue 10 and related are up for anyone who wants to provide normative text at a moment, and we have already made a lot of assignments.

<jchester2> I agree. I would like to hear from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft.

<Chapell> I think what Jeff is highlighting here is that most users are not doing to understand the distinctions we are drawing in this group

matthias: would like to understand how google would like this to work.

<fielding> My only goal in suggesting this change is that the document we produce not be logically incorrect regarding an actual Web use case. It can be fixed one way or the other, only one of which will be implemented in reality.

justin: i think roy described what they might say, but others can work on own or with Roy
... i think we did a good job talking about some of the issues, and it helped me. Let's let matthias talk about tracking for a bit.

<wseltzer> ISSUE-5?

<trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- What is the definition of tracking? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/5

Review of Status of ISSUE-5

<fielding> the actual change here is s/the/a/ (twice, in one sentence)

<schunter> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition

<WileyS> Alan - Aleecia's research showed that users actually do understand the difference between a 1st party and a 3rd party. They didn't understand how data collection though worked the same/differently between them.

schunter: we have like 6 different proposals re: tracking definition, one of which is that we don't need to define it at all. Latest proposal is form roy.

<justin> fielding, yes, thank you, your proposals were very helpful.

schunter: latest draft definition (reads it) and roy made a detailed proposal to change this.

<dsinger> I proposed a definition to establish the scope of what we are talking about. Data that is not "tracking" is not our concern.

<npdoty> dsinger, I don't have a change proposal from you on that wiki page -- do you want to submit something on that?

fielding: why do we need a definition? the way http works header fields define a preference from sender, in this case "not to be tracked" and what "tracking" means. that's most important detail

<Chapell> WileyS - didn't realize you were such a fan of the expectations research (:

<justin> dsinger, In the pre-June editors' draft, "tracking" was defined in the scope section (instead of in the definitions, as it was not an operative term within the standard.)

fielding: for http. determines if semantics on both sides are being honored.

<dsinger> Ah, yes, I will submit a 'no change' proposal, probably.

fielding: you can see in formal specs for http and also in actual behavior of http implementations
... a business might say if i get dnt 1 i will not track user but we have to know what that means.

<ninjamarnau_> I think in fieldings definition the problem of definition is just shifted from "tracking" to "following"

fileding: that's the reason to define. in my experience as protocol developer you can't have http header without defining semantics

<justin> OK, thanks.

justin: ok in intro to document?

fielding: ok with location up front. prefer in scope or first sentence.

<WileyS> Alan - not a "fan" persay, but hearing that users actually understood the difference between 1st party and 3rd party was a surprise to me as I would have thought the average user wouldn't understand this.

dsinger: agree with roy mostly also if you are doing something outside tracking then your behavior is not our concern.
... later in document you may find permitted use or exemption but still narrowing field of data we need to worry about helps us and reader undrestand what is in scope.

<justin> Anyone disagree?

<jchester2> +1

<dwainberg> Shane -- do you think users understand affiliates?

schunter: does anyone on call feel we should not define tracking?

<jchester2> I don't think we should define it

<johnsimpson> I continue believe that a definition is unnecessary...

<dwainberg> I don't recall what the scope of 1st party was in that research.

schunter: jeffchester: why not?

<justin> jchester2, Would you be OK with language in the scope section saying what we're trying to accomplish here? :)

schunter: unnecessary does not explain if some people find it necessary. Is there harm in having the defintion.

<WileyS> David - I believe users understand that companies may own other companies. What I don't believe they understand is how that applies to online activities and/or where to find where that list exists for each company. That is why I support a well-known resource for this information.

jeffchester: it's complex so we shouldn't define it.

<Brooks> so tracking means you are on this call?

<dsinger> Jeff, we can't ask industry to stop doing something we can't define. "I know it when I see it" is a terrible definition

jeffchester: everyone on call knows what they do and i think we should make the companies responsible and i don't see how we can make narrow distinctions but then would need more time to respond.

<WileyS> We need an narrow definition for v1 or we'll never make progress in this group

<justin> I don't think the language I previously proposed (and that Roy has re-proposed) is narrow. But I'm also not sure it's in the Wiki (cc npdoty)

jeffchester2: i think people know what they are doing and they should respect standard and halt surveillance. would need time to define/evaluate

<dsinger> also, no definition leaves it to each operator to define it themselves…not ideal

<schunter> justin can you take over for a minute?

<johnsimpson> anybody there? hearing nothing

<justin> Yes.

<jchester2> is John muted?

<WileyS> David - I'm okay with operators defining for themselves too :-)

<Chapell> I agree - we need a definition, and it should be narrow. However, I would caution the group to be careful about making decisions that have severe competive ramifications with marginal privacy gains

<johnsimpson> I'm bumped off the call.Will call back

<ninjamarnau_> vote not for a norrow but for a clear definition of what we want to address with the spec

<BerinSzoka> I just want to point out that Jeff Chester didn't remotely come close to answering the question: why NOT define tracking

jeff: Matthias had asked whether anyone thought we should not define tracking. Jeffchester expressed concern that definition would be too narrow. Then right thing to do would be to submit
... change proposal that you are more comfortable with and group could decide which is better.

<jchester2> I would rather the industry propose their own definition of tracking--so we can examine what they actually do and have a public debate.

justin: roy had said some time before that proposed language was not terrible (strong praise) so jeff and industry could look at that previously proposed definition

<jeff> [Jeff, the best way to make progress if you don't like existing proposals is to submit your own.]

daivdwainberg: i would caution us against a definition that does not accurately reflect what we are trying to accomplish .....might end up with spec that is confusing to users

justin: worth noting jeff jaffe's advice to make your own proposal

<fielding> I would like a definition that exactly fits what a user wants to turn off, or at least as close as possible that the browser companies are willing to use that in their description of the configuration option.

<jchester2> I hope you appreciate the limited resources NGOs have here--especially as we are dealing with the databroker expansion of data gathering.

<npdoty> fielding, does that mean we have to fit the whole spec into that definition?

davidwainberg: circling back to process/deadlines, seems that tracking and first party might both be tied to/interdependent with change proposals to come later.

schunter: according to plan we don't keep it open.

<WileyS> Jeff - we're all stretched - I don't believe NGOs have some unique situation there.

<fielding> npdoty, we have to fit the entirety of the user's expression, yes -- otherwise it isn't their expression

schunter: if at later stage there are inconsistencies we will repair.

<dsinger> I think roughly DNT = "I don't want entities that I am unaware of, didn't intend to interact with, and cannot see, keeping records about my web activity"

<schunter> It would be also good if you have particular practices that are outside the definitions and should be including.

<schunter> i am back

<moneill2> dsinger, +1

schunter: at some point will issue calls for change proposals.

<justin> dsinger, that's basically what my def said.

<jchester2> Shane. I think that's absurd and not what I would expect from Yahoo.

<dsinger> what's the close date for CPs for this issue?

<schunter> AFAIR, 2 weeks after we issue the call.

<schunter> (look into plan for normative language)

justin: david i hear what you're saying and as matthias said we are trying to take a different approach now rather than keeping everything open. It won't be perfect, and we'll be aware of issues and make adjustments.

<WileyS> Jeff - I work 16 hours a day on average - how is that absurd?

schunter: find one of the definitions that exist and see if you can make it work.

<jchester2> I am working 7 days a week myself--stay tuned for forthcoming products!

johnsimpson: i always thought defining tracking was not necessary because what the spec does not allow is tracking but if group feels definition is necessary i can live with that if we find a good one...

<WileyS> Jeff - understood (although on weekends I drop to about 10 hours a day). I'm just saying that most people I speak to - across the board - are working crazy hours right now. Something in the water?

johnsimpson: what's in editor's draft and jmayer's defintion look good.

<jchester2> Shane: Agreed. It's the water (although I don't work for Melissa Mayer!

fielding: in my opinion this is the issue on which all others depend, it does not itself depend on others except maybe "user." all adobe's answers depend on how we define tracking.

<jchester2> Can Roy use Adobe's business model to propose how they would define tracking?

dsinger: definition is long. can you explore edge cases and provide examples?

fielding: possibly.

dsinger. cool. would be interesting to see why some things are or are not tracking.

<npdoty> I think "collect" "retain" and "share" are also important parts of most definitions of "tracking"

<BerinSzoka> Folks, remember what Brooks said in Amsterdam: his son asked him where he was going. When he said "Do Not Track," his son asked the question we should ALL agree ought to be answered before we can proceed; "Daddy, what's tracking?" Disagreement about the answer is one thing, but it's absurd that we're still debating whether we should have an answer

fielding: definition includes both type of data and use of data. so something might not be tracking but can't be used for tracking.

<dsinger> if "collect" and "retain" are in a definition, I want them distinguished

fielding: [example of unique screen sizes\

<jchester2> what if they used the data to create a score that is used at some point?

<WileyS> +1 to David. If retention is dropped to anything more than a microsecond there is little distinction between collection and retention in my eyes (from a practical point of view)

schunter: when i look at definition by jonathan and [???] look fairly similar. OK to merge them?
... i would like to reduce number of change proposals by merging similar ones.

<npdoty> dsinger, WileyS, I'm +1 that we could likely turn those into one term with one definition

schunter: feedback on that?
... then i will send an email to list asking if that's ok.

<johnsimpson> Looks to me like merging works.

<WileyS> Nick - would definitely make reading the document much easier

<npdoty> WileyS, indeed

<WileyS> Nick - note, "much" was probably too strong - but still easier

schunter: so homework for this one is to include dwainberg proposal.....[ ] version, more to come.
... call ends. we will use this pattern for the coming weeks.

<WileyS> Regrets for next week in advance. Have fun.

schunter: will discuss process and review change proposals.

<dsinger> the only 'different' meaning I can think of for 'collect' is that you took active steps to get the data (e.g. you looked something up). I don't think we need to restrict that (e.g. determining geo loc from IP address)

- DRAFT -

Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference

25 Sep 2013

Attendees

Contents