W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > January to March 2015

RE: Super Cookies in Privacy Browsing mode

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:34:48 -0000
To: "'Rigo Wenning'" <rigo@w3.org>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: <public-privacy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03e701d0342f$c074ed20$415ec760$@baycloud.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rigo, the cookie banners are bad because they don’t work, not because they are ugly. Some of them are quite pretty. A very few of them also work.
If you want to give users control you have to have a UI somewhere.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> Sent: 19 January 2015 20:46
> To: David Singer
> Cc: public-privacy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Super Cookies in Privacy Browsing mode
>
> *** gpg4o | Unknown Signature from 7D4809884A36402B 1 2 00 1421700375 9
> ***
>
> On Monday 19 January 2015 10:35:53 David Singer wrote:
> > > It is yet another signal. Ok, it is not DNT, but it follows the same
> > > paradigm. I understand the branding issue, so let's call it BND (Be Nice
> > > Don’tprofile)
>
> This was a joke as BND is the acronym of the German secret service...
>
> > But that’s not what it is.  It is NOT asking “don’t profile” it’s asking
> > “segregate records”.
>
> This is much better done on the client side. We had nearly running code for
> this in the PrimeLife project. You can see remains here:
>
> http://code.w3.org/privacy-dashboard/
>
> There, the architecture is used to track the trackers. But the underlying
> architecture and ideas were basically inspired by user centric identities
> management. So all this was usable in the same way for personae. And of
> course
> there was also data handling and sticky policies that allowed for data
> segregation. AFAIK SAP implemented it and you can have it as a module.
> (http://www.primelife.eu/)
>
> > >> b) Unless you are paranoid, you don’t need the feedback. Anything they do
> > >> is an improvement on today, and I don’t expect there to be much in the
> > >> way of conformance rules, since the details of the handling are very
> > >> much specific to the nature of the service.
> > >
> > > Nothing to do with being paranoid. "Denn nur was ihr schwarz auf weiss
> > > besitzt, könnt ihr getrost nach Hause tragen" says Goethe. And he is right
> > > :)
> > OK, I don’t mind a general statement of “we support this feature”, and you
> > can make this machine-readable if you think it’ll result in any action by
> > the UA.  I rather suspect that having it human-readable is enough, that’s
> > all.
>
> If only the UA would remember where somebody said he would follow and
> didn't
> and we could use the feedback as evidence.
>
> As soon as you allow for human-readable declarations, you get a declaration
> from lawyers that they "may" offer the feature (in 22 pages and have their
> fingers crossed behind their back). So the technical reduction of semantics is
> a feature (like having only 140 characters in twitter)
>
> Secondly, you have to define what "segregation" means. If it just means that
> my website is less stupid so that your wife won't find out about the gifts you
> ordered online, than this is rather intelligent web design than a new feature.
> All you need is stateful interaction.
>
> > > Because, without feedback, you're in non-binding hand waving.
> >
> > There is a difference between saying that, for users to know that a server
> > supports the feature, they need to say so somehow, and in requiring that
> > that statement of support be machine-readable.
>
> In times when ugly cookie - banners trump smart technology like DNT, you'll
> have to offer an added value (legal certainty) in order to get anything. And I
> also think that hardcoding the personae into the one use case is too little.
>
> > > At this level
> > > and point, a cookie would do. And if you're concerned about the cookie
> > > being ephemeral, use a super-cookie. It is the feedback message, that
> > > changes the nature of protocol and message value, legally…
> >
> > Cookies are useless here; cookies are specific to a domain, and this request
> > is quite general.  One would need infinite numbers of cookies.
>
> Why? We already have an infinite number of cookies (have you looked? :)
> Because I want to be one person to one site and another person to another
> site. This isn't rocket science at all AFAICT.
>
> There should be a forget my profile after N days, not a "don't annoy me with
> your stupid revelations from my profile". Data segregation alone is just
> diminishing the annoyance factor, but doesn't add any user control or risk for
> democracy (the values that are behind privacy/data protection)
>
> So having only one persona and human readable declaration is kind of 1996. But
> I know that sadly enough, we are walking backwards.
>
>  --Rigo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.4.19.5391 - http://www.gpg4o.com/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUvXh3AAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JV/0H/10Ie/UX7EHqdaGZmXmum47Y
JKG++oIoNafP6KpqAZ8grA6rZ7J1iUHe5p1eqTN1PJeOfzCw98IMMFSV/yoV9y4L
7H+DBF9bLPOnxdLBJKIJJ3ck3yjuT0H9G0K5JKEBhBVEjmaKIDHB7vD7CtG8ZPDv
yW6JVLZhOGxKcRLOmXoglV+XIYc7sWhJV0ZK6X+ota2IT3WCoMnlX5ovCttM5lwD
iQ9v23p5feN4yR3QrDoHHnXo2IzFqLWqitmOjJ4rptanEK8Vk+7mE1ap5BvJkeL1
gYTM5qQ0wakNBweUFVkn3VYj/d5NsgOwvGWu6WR+L1klvRtOHbSEwxFmmSP6uOQ=
=F8DD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Received on Monday, 19 January 2015 21:36:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 January 2015 21:36:07 UTC