W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

RE: NS, Verisign, Firefly proposal [was Re: Revised charter ,milestones

From: Jaye, Dan <DJaye@engagetech.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:36:57 -0400
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=CMG%l=ANDEXC01-970530203657Z-15994@wilexc01.cmgi.com>
To: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3381
Several comments on this spec:

I was given to understand by Nick Grouf (CEO of Firefly) yesterday that
the OPS
spec was submitted to the W3C.  I have not yet seen it yet.

My understanding is that it defines the format and API for allowing apps
access profiles.

In addition, there are clear statements that:
Users must explicitly consent to the information being shared

The point is that privacy IS protected because the user is informed of
the use of the
information, has control over the information (can update it), and has

In addition, I do think that the W3C is the right place for this.
Personally, I feel that 
PICS, as a generic rating system should have been an IETF standard and
that the explicit social policies supported by it  (i.e., adult content
rating and privacy issues) should be addressed by W3C.

One pet peeve I have:  I don't know about the OPS spec, but Firefly
(which are the basis) talk about anomynity yet require an email address.
 In my
book any user identified by a real email address is NOT anonymous and I 
will vehemently oppose the spec as a W3C member if the OPS standard
that definition.  On the other hand, Firefly does an excellent job
otherwise of informing Passport holders of what the information will be
used for and 
attempting to provide a benefit in return.  In short, even though
Firefly Passports are not anonymous, I think that they provide
sufficient disclosure.

BTW: EFF, ETrust, Firefly, myself, and others will be at the Federal
Trade Commision in early June discussing these matters and I think that
you will find that us "evil web marketers" actually have strong
convictions about privacy and that those opinions are dramatically at
odds with the traditional direct marketing and advertising community.  

>From: 	guthery@austin.sar.slb.com[SMTP:guthery@austin.sar.slb.com]
>Sent: 	Thursday, May 29, 1997 3:01 AM
>To: 	paulh@imc.org
>Cc: 	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
>Subject: 	Re: NS, Verisign, Firefly proposal [was Re: Revised charter
>Paul Hoffman says ...
>>IMHO, discussing technology for which there is no published specification,
>>much less technology that will not be formed in the IETF, is probably not a
>>good use of this mailing list. When the technology is released from the W3C
>>WG, this group can assess how it affects the HTTP protocol, but not until
>1) The press release says the spec will be released on the 27th.  It wasn't.
>2) Netscape evidentally doesn't know the difference between a spec 
>   and a press release.
>3) What we have here is a closed open process.  What did the caterpillar say?
Received on Friday, 30 May 1997 13:36:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC