DNT Working Group Closes Out First Definitions Since Establishing TPE Focus
The Do Not Track Working group closed calls for objections on its first two tracking preference expression (TPE) definitions -- “tracking” and “party” -- amid ongoing opposition from several group members. The World Wide Web Consortium-convened DNT working group also discussed for the first time on its weekly call a new Dec. 3 deadline for closing put seven outstanding questions Wednesday. Opponents of the deadline called it a burden, while proponents argued the issues have been resolved for months, according to emails sent to a public forum for the group.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The deadlines are the first attempts to close up issues since the two-year-old W3C working group recently shifted its focus to completing a TPE specification before further addressing compliance issues. The group has struggled with internal dissention and defections, and the co-chairs decided to shift strategy after a survey in which many group members expressed a desire to prioritize a TPE document or disband the group all together (CD Oct 11 p12).
The working group has whittled the “tracking” definition down to three options: Two different definitions and a “no definition” option (http://bit.ly/1hXS2TF). One option defines tracking as “the collection of data regarding a particular user’s activity across multiple distinct contexts and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred.” Another defines tracking as “the retention or use after a network transaction is complete, or sharing, of data that is, or can be, associated with a specific user, user agent, or device."
The first definition would weaken the “meaning conveyed by the Do Not Track signal,” wrote Baycloud Systems Chief Technology Officer Mike O'Neill in a comment. “A common understanding of tracking involves the collection of a database of any web activity without a user’s knowledge (and therefore without their consent) and to many it is irrelevant what ‘contexts’ apply when this data is collected,” he wrote. “This definition would allow the collection, use etc. of data within any single context,” including “by third-party content servers,” he wrote.
Others continued to argue a tracking definition is best left to compliance. “It is unclear to me at this time that we need a definition of tracking to complete the technical specification document,” said Alan Chapell of Chapell and Associates, which helps companies with their privacy and data collection policies. “The user need only know that she has stated a preference to ’send’ a DNT signal,” wrote Chris Mejia of the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s Ad Technology Group. “That’s all the TPE should be about—no further context required."
The working group also offered two definitions for “party” (http://bit.ly/1hXVlKg). One makes the distinction between “first party” and “third party.” The second only uses the term “party” and does not differentiate “because the proponents believe,” according to an explanation, “that the standard should apply contextually.” Chapell thinks the group is “over-relying on first party-third party distinctions, which are no longer meaningful,” he said. The “digital advertising ecosystem” is significantly different than it was 10 years ago, when this distinction was “initially drawn,” he said. “We're creating a bright line distinction around ownership that will have significant anti-competitive ramifications over time.” Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester said the definition including “first” and “third party” contained loopholes for jointly operated sites and was “insufficient without meaningful safeguards that reflect online industry practices for the processing of consumers through a site,” in a comment.
Only Neill, Mejia and Chester had commented publicly on the definitions, at our deadline. Other prominent working group members, including Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project Director John Simpson and Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien, told us they planned to file objections before the Wednesday deadline. Working group co-Chairman and Director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Project on Consumer Privacy Justin Brookman said he wanted to wait to see all the objections before giving any hint at the decision the chairs are set to release by Dec. 11.
"The W3C seems intent on ramming through a standard as quickly as possible at this point,” Chapell told us. Others agreed after working group co-Chairman and Intel Chief Technologist and Principal Investigator Matthias Schunter announced Nov. 14 that the group would move to close out objections for seven outstanding questions, such as, “What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they are taking advantage of a transferred exception?” The chairs are moving some of these issues to closure before the working is “indicating that they are ripe,” Chapell told us. Network Advertising Initiative Counsel and Senior Director of Technology Jack Hobaugh echoed that in a public email to the group. Hobaugh asked for a larger “block of time to get up to speed on these issues,” adding that the “concurrent call for objections process does create a burden.” Apple Embedded Media Director David Singer replied in a public email, “many of these have been resolved for months.” (cbennett@warren-news.com)