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

Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

From: James Brentano <james.brentano@bluecava.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:59:10 -0500
To: Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: "mts-std@schunter.org" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "rigo@w3.org" <rigo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC06513E.4C8A%james.brentano@bluecava.com>
Doing my homework for tomorrow so re-reading various things …

Seems there's some consensus that "opt-in" must not have actual presentation and not be a "bundled" choice – why then does the same not apply to "opt-out"

(at least beyond the politics it seems either user preference should be expressed the same way)

First post to list, so please don't pile on if this distinction was addressed before I joined a few months ago

-James

James Brentano

BlueCava
131 Innovation Drive, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92617
james.brentano@bluecava.com<x-msg://59/james.brentano@bluecava.com>
Tel: +1.949.483.8894


From: Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com<mailto:kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Cc: "mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>" <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>>, "fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>" <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>>, "rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>" <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, Kevin Kiley <kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com<mailto:kevin.kiley@3pmobile.com>>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

> matthias wrote...
>
> Hi Rigo,
> …
> …
> 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.

There is no other way to look at this.

> 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.

I'm a little confused about this part.

Are you actually now saying that a 'Browser' must, in some way, be defined
by someone ( Who? ) as a 'Privacy-Enhancing Browser' in order for its 'defaults' to
be considered 'an expression of preference'... but 'regular' (?) Browsers would
NOT 'qualify' in the same way?

Was it just a 'typo' that you mention 'Browser' in BOTH paragraphs above, or
was that with specific intent for the language to be added to the spec?

If it was intentional... then I think the 'text' of the spec should make it VERY
clear which 'Browsers' can use DNT defaults and which ones can't.

WHO will be making the decisions about which 'Browsers' qualify for
paragraph one (above) and which ones do not?

Also… regarding paragraph two (above)… to what lengths must an 'antivirus' or
'privacy protection' tool go to in order to achieve the 'accepted' 'moment of choice'?

What if a standard antivirus/protection tool simply has the following install options…

[_] Enable ALL protections
[_] Customize

If the 'Enable ALL' option simply INCLUDES setting DNT=1 as a 'default'…. does
this qualify ( as far as the TPWG is concerned ) as a valid 'User choice'… or would
the tool have to specifically mention DNT and get specific approval for that one
protection item in order to be considered 'complaint' with the (DNT) spec?

> Regards,
> matthias

Regards,
Kevin
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 02:05:46 UTC

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