We have to start somewhere. The entire point of using context in this definition becquse tracking is to abstract away from what has clearly been a contentious issue. It also is too narrow and limiting. This is simply not the case. The non-normative language actually confuses this matter further by saying that a definition is required - just not any particular definition. While a definition is important, the definition must occur in a location to provide consistency becauxe user expectation and compliance requirements.
Because the proposals are dependent on other definitions, and are also dependent on other text currently in the Compliance specification, we believe that the editorial notes in italics that accompany Ddfinition selected proposal should accompany the Tracking definition as non-normative text, particularly for option B. Related Posts. Hence, it can be debated and decided separately, or perhaps not even defined at all left to the user to define according to what is evident from a Definitlon user experience.
The above definition also assumes that an explanation of permitted tracking will occur as well, presumably in the introduction along with the definition of tracking, so that a reader won't be misled about the user's expressed preference being the same as compliance. John Simpson I bceause to this definition. If these ported definitions were too broad, valuable context could be lost.
Context is highly subjective from a user perspective and should therefore not be pinned down by boundaries like common branding or other assumption. Amy Colando.
However, this recommendation assumes that by choosing to visit a site, users allow First Parties to retain and use tracking data they collect Deinition, or indirectly via Service Providers though there are restrictions on sharing ; and it allows Third Parties to claim permission to retain tracking data under some specific conditions e. Amy Colando Microsoft believes that defining Tracking will be helpful for implementers and Defimition readers of the TPE specification.
What is Dead stock? While this may factually correct, one wonders how it is helpful with respect to a users expression of choice. That's permitting a lot of tracking and retention.
A wide reach gives you better odds of converting your dead stock to sales. A third-party server receiving a DNT:1 al could continue to place or retain a unique user identifier and collect other data such as time of visit or geo-location details.
This could lessen the chance of getting legal backing for the standard in Europe. However, because it seems likely the chairs will elect to include a definition of tracking in the TPE despite strong objections to doing so, I will also state the following objections to this particular definition: 1. So the above text is suited to the TPE, and we can settle on the non-normative text that reflects Compliance when we get there.
A technical specification should not inform the user regarding a policy or compliance choice but instead should inform the technical community on how to implement a technical solution. This definition would allow the collection, use etc. It's inclusion outside of a broader document that fully defines and describes the meaning of a DNT al will be highly detrimental to the specification, because it would create considerable ambiguity and therefore risk for potential implementers.
This is over-broad in that it could include data and data uses that should not reasonably fall within the definition of tracking, including, for example, aggregate data, or other data that is not tracking data.
if A technical specification need only specify the requests and responses necessary for a DNT protocol to be implemented in a scalable and implementable solution across all browsers and the servers called. This appears to be saying tracking is X unless somewhere Definigion we say it isn't, but we don't have that somewhere else done yet. Every word in the specification is dependent on the specification's scope, and that scope is "Do Not Track".
If these ported definitions were too narrow, technical and policy compliance Definition of because be jeopardized i. Note that the extent to which tracking data may nonetheless be retained in the presence of this al under some circumstances is defined in the companion specification. Specifically, I object to this definition of tracking to the extent that it contains words and phrases that are yet to be fully explored and defined within the TPWG. Additionally, I specifically object to the portion of this definition that applies to "data derived" from users' activity.
The breadth of this definition, seemingly reliant on limitations in a companion document, illustrates the problem with locating a tracking definition in the TPE and highlights the potential for user choice to be based on misunderstanding. This highlights the process issues with attempting to define a crucial compliance term without first defining or at the same time defining the necessary terms contained in the proposed definition. It leaves open for unacceptably different interpretations of what would be within scope of this definition.
Defintiion The above definition depends on collection, retention, use, and sharing being defined along the becahse of the editors' draft or as clarified by Vinay's proposals. What are the causes of dead stock? Outside of the strong question of whether a definition is needed here Definktion the context of a pure technical specification, this definition lacks certainty for implementers.
I believe that how the server handles a preference statement from the user should be dependent on the compliance regime honored by the called server, and this should be messaged accordingly to the user. If you have an objection to this option, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning. Vinay Goel Shane Wiley I believe moving forward with this definition will only create further confusion with how to fairly set expectations with users.
After all, I cannot conceive of how the TPE would ever, practically speaking, stand alone Definition of because the marketplace. I feel strongly that the TPE should remain a pure protocol and technical specification document.
For two years now, the same people have been complaining about working on a definition of collection because they did not have an agreed upon definition of tracking. The user preference that should be supported within the scope of the TPE is fairly simple - to send or not send a DNT al. Brooks Dobbs I object to this for two distinct reasons: 1 This definition does not have meaning.
If new information is discovered later, the W3C process allows this decision to be reconsidered by the group. However, creating a definition of tracking is unnecessary to complete the technical specification document. In the non-normative text offered with this proposal, there is a proposed definition for context.
Second, and more to the point, I don't think it is readily understandable by the average user: what exactly is across multiple distinct contexts? Defining the boundaries of context by anyting else but the user would seriously undermine the user centric nature of Do Not Track. Rob van Eijk Brooks Dobbs Though I have only a singular objection to this definition, the objection is no less strong as to option A. Rob van Eijk I bbject to this definition.
David Singer This definition has many problems. While I support the focus on context, I object to the finalization and inclusion of a definition of tracking that relies on vague, undefined terms, such as context or sharing.
In my opinion this definition moves us no further towards consensus.