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

Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:26:38 +0000
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: <CC061F1D.3C22%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
One issue you may wish to consider.

4.3.3 
Navigator implements NavigatorDoNotTrack;Objects implementing the
Navigator interface [NAVIGATOR] (e.g., the window.navigator object) must
also implement the NavigatorDoNotTrack interface. An instance of
NavigatorDoNotTrack is obtained by using binding-specific casting methods
on an instance of Navigator.




How does JavaScript know if the DOM property was set by the default at
install time or was set by an on-screen "User Choice" or was set by a 3rd
Party?

Punting this over to "public opinion, criticism, action on the part of
servers etc.," could be cause for content providers to simply ignore the
spec. It's not their job to define it, it's their job to implement it.


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752








-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:52 AM
To: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>,
W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults
Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:52:55 +0000

> 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/000
>>>>> 0.ht
>>>>> ml
>>>>> 
>>>>> ....Roy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 08:24:41 UTC

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