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

Re: ACTION-211 Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:56:06 -0600
To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
CC: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CBFF710D.34AF%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Hi Tamir,

>> What I meant was that if MSIE treats all users in accordance with that
>> dialogue, a second DNT-1 response to a N-ACK will indubitably be a valid
>> expression of user intent not to be tracked.

Correct. Now change it back to a 0 and then change it back to a 1 - how
does the server know what the intent is?


>> If servers start bringing
>> in external research into the assessment of facially valid signals, then
>> I don't see how we can draw the line at 'the first signal is not a
>> meaningful expression of user intent'.

Correct. You can't - it's a design flaw (Wernher Von Braun - "You can
recover from a production flaw but never from a design flaw")



>> My a, b & c were merely symbolic and I'm not advocating those specific
>> options, merely trying to demonstrate how an escalation could play out
>> if we start ignoring valid-seeming signals.

Understood. 


>> What I *did* have in mind
>> for the toolbar to essentially direct the user to the DNT mechanism and
>> make it easier for them to make a selection (I'm hearing from you this
>> is not so easy : P). Requiring an election as part of the browser set up
>> process would have similar effect.


Rigo also suggested a similar solution - which I agree is probably the
best approach in a situation like this. There's NO silver bullet here. The
sentient being is always in charge and the non sentient being (the Web
server) doesn't have enough information to determine true intent, (it can
be tricked) all it knows is a 1 or a 0




Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752








-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>,
Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>,
Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Subject: Re: ACTION-211 Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent
to turn  on a DNT signal

>Hi Peter,
>
>On 6/14/2012 9:58 AM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
>> Is correct. The problem you have is that each time a user changes
>>his/her
>> settings you have to run through the whole logic again. Which means in
>> essence you have to track the user to know when they changed the setting
>> last.
>
>What I meant was that if MSIE treats all users in accordance with that
>dialogue, a second DNT-1 response to a N-ACK will indubitably be a valid
>expression of user intent not to be tracked. If servers start bringing
>in external research into the assessment of facially valid signals, then
>I don't see how we can draw the line at 'the first signal is not a
>meaningful expression of user intent'.
>
>> The issue you do have in your logic is item C) I'm generally OK with
>>being
>> tracked, please stop bothering me. I think it's redundant because the
>> tracking choice is binary (1,0). However this is where the Null value
>> comes in - so C could be c) I don't have a preference - but this then
>> introduces another point of confusion. It means one thing in Europe (do
>> not track) and another thing in the US (tracking allowed). So now you
>>have
>> to determine the users location before setting a cookie to meet the
>> preference.
>
>My a, b & c were merely symbolic and I'm not advocating those specific
>options, merely trying to demonstrate how an escalation could play out
>if we start ignoring valid-seeming signals. What I *did* have in mind
>for the toolbar to essentially direct the user to the DNT mechanism and
>make it easier for them to make a selection (I'm hearing from you this
>is not so easy : P). Requiring an election as part of the browser set up
>process would have similar effect.
>
>You raise another interesting point -- what happens if someone actually
>*prefers* 'unset', leaving it to the whims of evolving domestic norms to
>decide what is best for them [assuming what 'domestic' means can be
>determined through coarse geo info : )]?
>
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 16:56:51 UTC

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