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

Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:52:03 -0700
Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "publ >> \"public-tracking@w3.org\"" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-id: <86549553-7249-467C-97B9-8058A48E1D56@apple.com>
To: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
I think we could rat-hole badly on trying to decide every case of whether a tool is intended expressly to provide privacy, or is general-purpose.  I think we should just write as clear a rule as we can, and walk away, and let public opinion, criticism, action on the part of servers, etc., clarify for us.


On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:42 , Lee Tien wrote:

> Hi Matthias,
> 
> I don't think we reached agreement on antivirus, at least according to Aleecia's summary:
> 
>> 	Implication B: AVG, as an anti-virus package and much more, may or may not count as a users' expression of privacy. We are still discussing this which leads to...
>> 
>> (2) Today we did not agree what threshold "counts" for a user expressing a privacy preference while selecting a user agent. We heard a variety of views and thresholds proposed. The conversation ended with:
>> 	Action item on Ian to write text with his proposal (action-212)
>> 	Action item on Justin to write text with his proposal (action-211)
> 
> thanks,
> Lee
> 
> On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rigo,
>> 
>> 
>> after being underwater while changing jobs, I finally read the current spec.
>> 
>> I have finally read the spec and I believe that
>> a) Our agreement (ISSUE-4) is correctly reflected in the spec albeit
>> the current language could benefit
>>     from further editorial improvements to enhance clarity.
>> b) That the well-known URI / response headers need discussion and
>> improvements and that this discussion is not yet over.
>>    Roy had the mission to merge response headers into his proposal
>> (what he did) and the result needs more polishing.
>> 
>> Since I believe that we all agree that a default can be an expression of
>> preference (e.g., if I install a privacy-enhanced browser that is
>> permitted to ship with DNT;1 as default), feel free to indicate text
>> updates to clarify the text to fully communicate this agreement. We also
>> agreed that installing general-purpose tools (browser, OS, antivirus,
>> ...) is not such  a declaration of prefefence and thus those tools must
>> not ship with DNT on (e.g., DNT;1). However, they may enable DNT by
>> asking their user during installation.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>> 
>> 
>> On 04/06/2012 11:34, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>>> Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to implement. 
>>> I object to those edits. 
>>> 
>>> Rigo
>>> 
>>> On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
>>>>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
>>>>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries.
>>>>> I intend to fix that as an editorial concern.  Please feel free
>>>>> to send suggested text to the mailing list.
>>>> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was
>>>> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the
>>>> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit
>>>> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of
>>>> the current spec.
>>>> 
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0000.ht
>>>> ml
>>>> 
>>>> ....Roy
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 17:52:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:31 UTC