Re: Towards a Grand Compromise

I have an issue with the use of the term 'explicit consent' in the 
context of 1.1. This is perhaps a terminology problem.

Specifically, under must DP frameworks (and I feel we are operating in a 
data protection paradigm here), 'explicit consent' basically means a 
positive act assenting to the collection, use or disclosure of personal 
information.

I understood the objective of the spec is to 'express user preferences' 
(this is not the same as consent, I get the impression we are conflating 
the two).

Take your: "Example: The user agent's privacy preferences pane includes 
controls for configuring the Tracking Preference signal." This is more 
or less the archetypal description of _implicit_ consent, not explicit.

Best,
Tamir


On 6/6/2012 8:06 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> This group has made tremendous progress.  As we enter our second year 
> and look forward to our fifth meeting, we can celebrate achieving 
> hard-won consensus on many difficult topics.
>
> It's time to complete our task.  We have given shape to the several 
> issues at the center of Do Not Track policy, but we have not reached 
> agreement on how to resolve them.  Those issues are, in brief:
>
> 1) May a user agent enable Do Not Track by default?
>
> 2) May a website share its information with corporate affiliates?
>
> 3) May a third-party website continue to set tracking cookies (or use 
> an equivalent technology for collecting a user's browsing history)?
>
> Peter Eckersley (EFF), Tom Lowenthal (Mozilla), and I (Stanford) have 
> iterated on a comprehensive compromise proposal that addresses these 
> issues.  The text draws extensively on prior drafts from multiple 
> constituencies.  It would, in short:
>
> 1) Require explicit consent for enabling Do Not Track.
>
> 2) Allow affiliate information sharing.
>
> 3) Prohibit tracking cookies.
>
> We have received valuable feedback from a number of participant 
> viewpoints, including browser vendors, advertising companies, 
> analytics services, social networks, policymakers, consumer groups, 
> and researchers.  Out of respect for the candid nature of those 
> ongoing conversations, we leave it to stakeholders to volunteer their 
> contributions to and views on this proposal.
>
> As you review the draft, please recognize that it is a /compromise/ 
> proposal.  The document is not a retread of well-worn positions; it 
> reflects extraordinarily painful cuts for privacy-leaning 
> stakeholders, including complete concessions on two of the three 
> central issues.  Some participants have already indicated that they 
> believe the proposal goes too far and are unwilling to support it.
>
> We would ask all stakeholders to approach the document with a 
> collegial spirit.  I can assure you now: there will be components of 
> the proposal that you will not like.  Some industry and advocacy 
> participants will flatly reject it.  But when everyone in the center 
> of the group is just a bit unhappy, I think we've found our consensus.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan
>
>