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

Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:19:33 -0500
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <CB57F8E0.13967%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Rigo - 

My thoughts below [in parenthesis]

Alan






On 2/8/12 9:05 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>Alan, 
>
>while your argumentation may be compelling within undeclared neutral
>grounds, 
>it isn't as convincing after the user has expressed the clear will to not
>be 
>tracked/recorded/followed/profiled/classified/targeted.

[We should put a pin in this part of the discussion - but I'm glad that
we're on the same page regarding the User's clear expression not to back
tracked (as eventually defined). I hope that ultimately, we can push to
ensure that our output documents reflect our focus on such clear
expression of intent.]


> And this user has
>received a response saying: "We honor your expressed preference". If this
>acceptance now means: "We except with our fingers crossed behind our
>backs and 
>will take advantage of an exception to have you
>tracked/recorded/followed/profiled/classified/targeted" then the average
>user 
>will find that a bit confusing. An exception isn't an exception anymore
>if it 
>is the default IMHO.

[Recognizing that email doesn't always show the full color of what one is
trying to express, I'm a bit concerned with the implication that industry
will appear to agree to these standards but only with our fingers crossed
behind our backs. That said, I'm reminded of an old saying during the U.S.
/ U.S.S.R. Cold War under the Ronald Reagan years --- "Trust, but verify."
And if we're going to adopt that as our mantra (explicitly or implicitly),
I ask that we do so consistently.]
> 
>
>If we accept that the exceptions we are discussing in a DNT=1 scenario
>are 
>still exceptions, than those exceptions derive from the general rule: not
>tracking. And it is the nature of exceptions that they have to be
>justified as 
>a departure from the general rule. And they have to be interpreted in a
>narrow 
>way. Because otherwise, they aren't exceptions anymore but a change to
>the 
>general rule. A change to the general rule would mean here that DNT=1
>means 
>DNT=unset which in turn would make all our efforts pretty futile. And I
>wouldn't want Shane to go through his excellent list of things a company
>must 
>do for DNT compliance without any need to just have a fig leaf for
>further 
>collection.
>
>So I'm sorry to say that the burden of argumentation in a DNT=1 scenario
>is 
>with those claiming the exception and wanting to collect and use data.
>Sean 
>and Shane have done a good job on why they want the data. I tried to
>explain 
>we shouldn't collect that data (arguments to be improved). Ninja and Roy
>hinted at a solution by retention limitation and Jonathan hinted at a
>client 
>side solution. I would rather like to discuss those concrete solutions
>than 
>fundamentally question the exercise we are doing.

[I think we agree here. But hinting at a potential solution is not the
same as providing demonstrable proof that such a solution is an
Internet-wide solution. I'm merely suggesting that it is not only fair -
but more productive - that we err more towards demonstrable proof. And
that the scope of such proof extend beyond the large companies and into
the long tail.]
>
>Best, 
>
>Rigo
>
>On Thursday 02 February 2012 12:17:25 Alan Chapell wrote:
>> I agree with much of what Shayne said - but will add the following?.
>> 
>> It seems like much of the discussion (on this topic at least) is a bit
>> one-sided. If we're going to ask industry to granularly explain why
>> certain data uses pass Jonathan's Compelling need test, then it seems
>>fair
>> to ask Jonathan (and/or others) to be able to granularly demonstrate
>>(for
>> example) how and to what extent client side frequency capping approaches
>> work. The Stanford team has clearly done some fantastic work here, but a
>> test using a relatively small game network may or may not translate
>> perfectly outside of the testing environment. And I think its fair to
>>ask
>> for a clear demonstration of how these concepts can be applied by both
>>the
>> MSFT's and Googles, as well as tier 2 and tier 3 companies.
>> 
>> On that note, I'm concerned that much of what we're talking about
>> implementing will create all kinds of technical and logistical issues
>>for
>> companies who don't have the resources of a Yahoo or Adobe.
>> 
>> Has the group considered bringing in some invited experts from the
>> long-tail of industry to help ensure that this is something that they
>>can
>> implement without hiring an army of tech consultants?
>> 
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 15:23:02 UTC

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