W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2012

RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:05:19 +0000
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB17D596C94A854E9EE4171D33BBCC8108C90E@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
It sounds like we are in agreement here. I think we are just talking past each other. Can we end the discussion here and finish off the text we were producing? We can then submit it to the group and discuss in DC as needed.


From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:46 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

JC, I have repeatedly said before I'm fine with social widgets on third-party sites giving me relevant contextual information.  Frankly, I don't care if this use of first-party data in a third-party context is tied to registration/logged-in state or not, but if people want to limit it to registation/logged-in state, whatever.  But while I'm fine with Amazon ephemerally recognizing my presence of a different site to render a contextually-relevant experience for me there, I don't want Amazon to store the fact that I was on that site for my Amazon profile UNLESS I gave them permission to track me pursuant to a clear and prominent prompt.

As for the MyBlogLog (for the Bob Loblaw Law Blog?) example, I don't know the details of the sign-up flow , but it sounds like it was clearly stated to users what the purpose of the product was upon sign-up, so it would meet the test of the language I drafted (I'm assuming users signed up for MyBlogLog independently of other Yahoo! services because they wanted to be included on these reader lists).  HOWEVER, it meets the test not because of the privacy policy or the URI/response header, but because of what was clearly presented to the user during sign up.  I reiterate the point, however, it would not be appropriate for the New York Times of Yahoo! mail to use a ToS to get permission for themselves (or others) to ignore DNT.

Sent via mobile, please excuse curtness and typos

-----Original message-----
From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 20:27:46 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

Would you say that today logged in state is irrelevant for Amazon, FB or my bank? Not at all. There is a difference. If I am reading an Amazon-sponsored book review on a third-party site and it indicated that my friend bought the book (because my friend opted in to sharing) I would appreciate that info. I would not like it if I wasn’t logged in and I would like the option to say don’t track me. Your position doesn’t give consumers that flexibility.


From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:01 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

I continue to think that logged-in state should be irrelevant, and that whoever wants to get permission to track despite a DNT signal should have to do so pursuant to clear and prominent notice.

Shane, just so I understand your view of the logged-in/out-of-band consent exception, walk me through how it would apply to Yahoo!  Yahoo! will publicly state that they are W3C/DNT compliant, but for people who register for Yahoo! mail, Yahoo! could reserve the right to ignore the header within a terms of service agreement for Yahoo! third-party ads.  If that's your vision, it seems like a perverse result that would seriously compromise the value of the DNT setting, but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.  If that's not your vision, please tell me how the spec would avoid such a scenario.

Sent via mobile, please excuse curtness and typos

-----Original message-----
From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 19:48:33 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

My "Yay" was for the minor victory - not the larger one. :-)

That said, I'm finding more consensus here (I believe) as all of my comments to this point where with the expectation that either the response header and/or well-known URI were in place to provide further "clear and prominent" notice to the user where their DNT header is or is not being applied (prominence decided by the web browser vendors).

If we agree that any party that believes it has out-of-band consent must state as such in either the response header or the well-known URI (approach to be decided upon) and that this meets the conditions of compliance with DNT - then I believe we're in a good place and this would allow us to avoid the longer debate around "appropriate consent" mechanisms.


- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]<mailto:[mailto:rigo@w3.org]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:39 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: David Singer; Shane Wiley
Subject: Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

On Monday 02 April 2012 11:30:15 David Singer wrote:
> But we are left with the question of defining what the user needs to give
> consent to, and how much consent may reasonably be bundled. That's a
> description of our protocol.

And that's why I believe the YAY of Shane was a bit early. And this exactly
what JC was suggesting.

David, the lack of precision of "give consent" is creating a pseudo
consensus IMHO. We have to be more concrete. Shane said, the service would
declare if it honors DNT even though the user is logged-in. This hints to
the fact that we have to agree on the response headers. So if a service
tracks because it believes it has an agreement (I heard Shane telling that
story in Brussels) it can either say: DNT is off, you're logged-in/consented
Or the service can say: We accept your DNT=1 and the compliance spec would
specify what JC suggested for that case.

But at least, there is no misunderstanding that people believe DNT=1 while
Services send DNT=ack and track anyway because of some privacy policy
meaning in section 178. It would also solve my use case with the forgotten
login-cookie as the browser would recognize the tracking in the response
header. So I think this is a viable way out. Shane?


Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 21:06:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:47 UTC