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 19:50:05 -0700
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D11A996EC@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>

I believe "explicit" in this case covers both "distinct" and "affirmative".  I'll be working with Justin to develop non-normative text in this area to further highlight areas where consent should be unavoidably prominent and in other cases where the nature of the service is so obvious that it can justifiably call out their business practices without referring to DNT. 

(Nick - Do either Justin or I have an action item for this task documented?)

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:43 PM
To: Nicholas Doty
Cc: Shane Wiley; Tracking Protection Working Group WG
Subject: Re: action-159 Draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent

On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:18 , Nicholas Doty wrote:

> 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?

I now understand that "distinct" over-reaches what we wanted to achieve (that presenting a whole load of questions to the user, with only a "yes/no to all" option is probably poor).  If "explicit" means both that they are asked the question and have the opportunity to say "no" without throwing the baby out with the bath-water, as it were, I think dropping "distinct" is fine.

So, are we now suggesting "explicit, affirmative, consent"?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 02:50:51 UTC

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