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

Re: Issue-4

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:43:01 -0800
Message-Id: <891FF2BE-AF0A-446E-9873-4B222F02B9C4@aleecia.com>
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
[I'm reviving a thread that I dropped out of during the preparation before the Santa Clara meeting. It may help to review via http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/4 ]

Hi Jonathan,

My read is that most people are more comfortable without intermediaries modifying DNT signals. As such, I think we're looking for a three-part state of on / off / unset. Your clarifying point is well taken, and I see you are not arguing for the five states. 

Is there anyone who wants to make the case for five states? If so, let's talk it through: I will want to understand what use case or purpose it serves that is compelling enough to add complexity. If I see nothing on the mailing list and hear nothing on the Wednesday call, I will continue to think that we're looking at three-part state.

	Aleecia


On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> A quick technical clarifying point on this - the DNT protocol could trivially encode whether an option is explicit or implicit.  We could (not saying we should) have five states.
> 
> User has expressed no preference and no intermediary has added a preference
> User has explicitly opted into tracking
> User has explicitly opted out of tracking
> User has expressed no preference, but an intermediary has added a preference indicating opt in to tracking
> User has expressed no preference, but an intermediary has added a preference indicating opt out of tracking
> 
> Likewise, we could (not saying we should) have corresponding policy for each of the states.  (It appears there's near-consensus that no preferences = governing law trumps, and I suspect there's near-consensus that there should be a very high bar to implicit opt in.)
> 
> On Oct 26, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Based on what we discussed in Boston, plus the conference call today, here is where I think we are for Issue-4:
>> 
>> 	It is out of scope for the TPWG to decide to make DNT opt-in or opt-out. That is a purely political question that may be country-by-country. However, as Roy notes, we need a technical specification that is clear to implement. 
>> 
>> 	What we are trying to support is the idea that DNT decisions may be implicit. For example, installing a proxy or a specialized privacy-protective browser is, itself, a user decision for privacy even in the absence of explicitly understanding that DNT happens to be one of the mechanisms used. What we are trying to avoid is a case where an ISP tells advertisers "I'm turning on DNT for all of my users, regardless of their actual privacy preferences, unless you give me a cut of advertising revenue." The basic concept here is that DNT is the user's voice, and must be the user's preference. 
>> 
>> Proposed text to react to:
>> 
>> A compliant user agent must offer users a minimum of two choices: on, and off. When DNT is on, the user agent sends an HTTP header of “DNT: 1”. When DNT is off, the user agent sends an HTTP header of “DNT: 0”. If the user has not expressed a privacy preference, neither the user agent nor any service may send a DNT header on the user’s behalf. For example, neither a browser nor an ISP may inject “DNT: 1” on behalf of all of their users who have not selected a choice corresponding to “DNT: 0”. However, a user may make a choice for privacy that then implicitly includes a DNT setting. For example, a user choosing something like “Privacy settings: high” in a user agent might include a bundle of responses, including turning on DNT. That is acceptable. Similarly, users installing a browser plugin that advertises itself as protecting privacy could also have DNT turned on. Users need not understand the technical mechanisms for DNT and we do not address user interface presentation. The basic principle here is that DNT reliably expresses users’ choices. 
>> 
>> DNT should only and exactly send a signal of a user's preference. In the absence of user choice, there must be no DNT signal sent. In some cases users will not have DNT preferences, including while using older user agents that do not support DNT. Consequently, services (websites and others) would be wise to assume some users will not send a DNT expression. In the absence of regulatory, legal, or other requirements, services are free to interpret lack of DNT header as they find most appropriate for their users, particularly in light of users’ privacy expectations and cultural circumstances.
>> 
>> 	Aleecia
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 07:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:22 UTC