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

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

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:18:27 -0400
Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-Id: <E57E4AC1-E659-4FB9-90F6-C593F7FBB337@w3.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
On Apr 12, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Nike,

s/Nike/Nick/ ;)

> 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])".

I thought that was the thinking, that we should refer to known terms that have meaning that you interpret with your regulator in your jurisdiction. Can you point us to documentation on what those terms mean that we might not want?

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

Great! I wasn't foolish enough to assume that just because we had several people comfortable with these three adjectives that we wouldn't have a lovely debate with other alternatives. :)

> 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 :-) ).

Are others comfortable with "explicit, informed consent"? Do we think "explicit" covers cases that stakeholders care about regarding defaults?

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:18:35 UTC

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