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

RE: action-159 Draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:47:50 -0700
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D11A994F9@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Nike,

Interestingly each of the terms you've selected have specific legal context and break your goal of "avoid getting into the details of a particular model of content (leaving that up to the implementer and the particular jurisdiction's [laws])".

That aside, many of us feel this language is close but has some unintended impacts to user experiences albeit it well intentioned.

Rather than use the terms "distinct, affirmative" I would recommend this be altered to "explicit" as this allows some degree of bundling of permissions but means the material elements must be directly evident to a user for it to meet the "explicit" bar (again, another term with legal context - I don't know how we discuss this topic without stepping into existing legal territory :-) ).

I stripped out redundant terms such as "previously" and "tracking" as these are already implied.

The amended statement would be: "Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have received explicit, informed consent to do so." 

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:27 AM
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG
Cc: David Singer
Subject: Re: action-159 Draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent

David and I were tasked with coming up with a shorter piece of text on standards for out-of-band override of a user's DNT preference (that is, contra to a user-agent-managed site-specific exception). This proposal is meant to avoid getting in to the details of a particular model of consent (leaving that up to the implementer and the particular jurisdiction's regulator) while specifying what would be necessary to match our understanding of a user's expressed preference.

> Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have previously received _distinct, affirmative, informed consent_ to track the user.

(Really, we're just proposing these three adjectives, and I'm guessing that something like this sentence would go around them, but I leave that up to the editors. Also, this doesn't speak to the tracking response question, which I believe we have broad consensus on but is likely taken up elsewhere.)

>From a handful of coffee conversations, it seems like this short set of descriptors might be amenable to various stakeholders.

Thanks,
Nick
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:48:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:27 UTC