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

Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 17:48:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dLTtmtNQQS8LX+W3_jXfB5vqj8Wxm_QG=fWnNrkKdWtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Ninja Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:

>  Hi Ian,
>
>
> On 6/9/2012 12:49 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. Surely, Canadian users can use the Internet
> today without hitting this legal dilemma. If DNT is not available as a
> negotiation mechanism, either because the site doesn't support it at all or
> chooses not to support it for a given set of user agents, then you are in
> the same situation that you are in today. Whatever mechanism are in place
> today are not going to cease to exist with the rollout of DNT. So, I would
> presume you would solve this situation the same way you solve it today.
>
>
> I don't know why you would assume this. It's largely a complaints-driven
> regime. I imagine people have been holding back on complaints only because
> they are waiting for this W3C process to resolve itself.
>

I assume this because I find it odd to assume that there would be only one
solution for anything.


>
>
>
> I agree it's worth understanding what it would take to address them and
> try to do so if it's at zero to no cost, however lately it seems like it
> has become the primary focus and adding great complications, as opposed to
> an add-on to be done if it's straightforward.
>
>
> Well, I don't think we should ignore the fact that this entire W3C process
> would not be happening at all if online advertisers did not have regulatory
> problems because they lacked effective mechanisms for meeting user
> expectations. I had understood the W3C process in terms of attempting to
> find ways to address these regulatory challenges. I'm not convinced this
> can only come at 'zero cost'.
>
> Speaking more generally, the work of Internet standards bodies in solving
> problems such as this should be informed, at least, by legal norms.
>

Obviously we cannot work in total ignorance of legal norms, or do things
that have absolutely no effort (a considerable effort has been put in by
many people from industry, government, and academia already). That said,
there is some relativistic aspect here. What I'm trying to say is that we
need to consider the cost to satisfy a given requirement as a part of
deciding whether that requirement is one we should take on. I think the
E.U. situation is a good example of this, where we have a directive that
has yet to be codified in most countries, with one of the countries that
has codified it so far coming out in stark contrast to what people have
been led to believe would be required to satisfy that directive. Clearly
there's a lot up in the air right now, and it's not clear to me given the
lack of solid information that it's worth taking on high-cost actions to
solve requirements that aren't even solidified. The Canadian situation may
well be different from the EU situation and the US situation, but I would
like to discuss concrete requirements or proposals, and figure out what
those proposals would cost in terms of effort/complexity/encumbrance, as
opposed to debating in the abstract.


>
>
>
>>  Best regards,
>> Tamir
>>
>>
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 00:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC