W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

RE:Re: TPE Document, S2.3 P1

From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 01:03:49 +0000
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>
CC: Ashkan Soltani <ashkan.soltani@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9FF2724793CE3843BF5E46A70AA609A519A80F4E@IAB-NYC-EX1.IAB.local>
I am not saying that I disagree, but how would a browser flag be delivered to a mobile app?

Is Apple ready to change their iOS to make this happen?

Mike Zaneis
SVP and General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

From : John Simpson
Subject : Re: TPE Document, S2.3 P1

I think I agree with Jules and Ashkan. We need to be clear that users would expect DNT to cover any user agent. That certainly should explicitly cover mobile apps.

John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
Tel: 310-392-7041<tel:310-392-7041>

On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Jules Polonetsky" <julespol@futureofprivacy.org<mailto:julespol@futureofprivacy.org>> wrote:

Seconding Ashkan. I think we need further discussion because I think we may have disagreement about the need to be clear that including mobile apps is a key goal here.

From: Ashkan Soltani [mailto:ashkan.soltani@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 7:44 PM
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Tom Lowenthal; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: TPE Document, S2.3 P1

FWIW, I have to date *NEVER* seen a mobile app that speaks to 'one service exclusively'.  Even singular apps (such as Google Maps) still ping location services from the carrier, etc.

Furthermore, I *don't* think mobile apps should be explicitly excluded since mobile apps now supplant much of the work that web browsers do.  IE They often frame the web service with much of the same 3rd party tracking issues discussed here, often with precisely the same 3rd party add APIs via HTTP that the standard website uses.

Carving out specific exemptions for mobile, etc would reduce the long term impact of this effort. (i.e non future-proof)

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>> wrote:
I made the following change, which conveys the same thing but without
the double negative and paragraph break.


Index: tracking-dnt.html
RCS file: /w3ccvs/WWW/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -r1.29 -r1.30
--- tracking-dnt.html   31 Oct 2011 23:11:47 -0000      1.29
+++ tracking-dnt.html   31 Oct 2011 23:30:53 -0000      1.30
@@<EMAIL:@@> -210,9 +210,11 @@<EMAIL:@@>
          defined by this specification is applicable to all forms of user
          agent, the compliance requirements are specifically concerned with
          the privacy expectations of a human user and the tracking of their
-          browsing history over time.  Hence, user agents that do not have
-          some form of "browsing" nature or do not communicate with more
-          than one site are not expected to comply with this protocol.
+          browsing history over time.
+          User agents that do not have a <q>browsing</q> nature, such as
+          mobile apps that communicate with one service exclusively, are not
+          the intended target for this protocol, though they can implement
+          the protocol if they so desire.

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 01:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:42 UTC