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

RE: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions (Issue-111)

From: <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:32:03 -0700
Message-ID: <2fed8a2eace60eb56cc2bd16db03c591.squirrel@webmail.schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Folks,


I still believe that the question "What third parties will be used?" or
alternatively "what responsibilities do all these parties have?" are valid
concerns once a user wants to decide whether to agree to a site-wide
user-granted exception.

Wouldn't the idea to post third parties at the well-known URI resolve the
chain issue since it enables recursion?

1. A site posts its (direct) third parties at its well-known uri
2. The referred 1st level third parties again post their direct (now 2nd
level) third parties at their respective well-known URIs.

If this is the case, then it would provide a way to identify the (many)
potential third parties that might be used.

I believe that if we cannot identify the set of third parties, then an
alternative would be to talk about what "please trust me to choose the
right third parties"  means wrt responsibilities.

Without either of these discussions, granting a site-wide exception would
mean that the user would be worse-off that without DNT since
 a) Neither site nor third parties will be constrained by DNT
 b) The user has now indicated that he is OK with this behavior

What do you think? Please currect me if I misinterpreted the current status.

Regards,
 matthias

> Kevin,
>
> I thought that it would help to solve the ad chain issue because the 1st
> party does not have to know the chain that would be generated dynamically,
> it could just generate a static list of all the potential third parties
> that could be called.
> Do you have an estimation of how many third parties would have to be
> listed in that case? If its one or two dozens, that could work, if its
> hundreds then it might not make sense.
>
> Maybe knowing the root of the chain might be enough (that could also work
> for explicit/explicit user granted exceptions).
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vincent
> ________________________________________
> From: Kevin Smith [kevsmith@adobe.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 6:03 PM
> To: TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT); public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: RE: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions
> (Issue-111)
>
> I like this suggestion.  I have expressed many times that I believe
> passing in 3rd parties into the specific javascript calls will only work
> in the very simplest of cases.  I think this will extend the usefulness of
> the JS API because it is much more scalable to manage your list of 3rd
> parties in a single location than on a per page per JS request basis.  In
> practice, if I were forced to use the JS API as is, I would probably mimic
> this behavior using centralized global JS variables to represent the 3rd
> party groups.  However, this approach would be much cleaner.
>
> However, I do not understand how it solves the ad chain problem.  If the
> 1st party does not know who is in the ad chain, and the ad chain is
> dynamic, then it cannot put the 3rd parties in this doc any more easily
> than it could put them directly in the JS call.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)
> [mailto:Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:04 PM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: An alternative to site-specific user granted exceptions
> (Issue-111)
>
>
> I suggest an alternative to site-specific exceptions (Issue-111). Instead
> of providing the list of 3rd parties through the JavaScript API, this list
> could be provided through Tracking Status Representation (available
> through the well-known URI).
> There is already a field to send that list to the UA (See section 5.1.2 in
> TPE document) but it is currently optional. If we replace the MAY by a
> MUST, then users could get the list of third parties present on a site
> before they visit it and then decide if they are ready to grant a
> site-wide exception.
>
> Pros:
> -       User grant exceptions knowing which third parties could track them
> -       This does not broke the chain in ad-exchanges
> -       Publisher do not have to ask new user granted exceptions when they
> add third parties
> Cons:
> -       Users have to check the well known URI more often
> -       Users can not provide feedback about the third parties present on
> a website (a non granted exception is - in my opinion-- an explicit
> feedback).
>
> I still prefer the site-specific exception mechanism as it gives users
> more choices, but I believe this solution could be seen as a middle
> ground.
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 10:32:30 UTC

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