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

Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:41:01 -0600
To: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC074993.3D4D%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Chris,

You're now in a circular argument.

Step 1. Determine if UA is valid or Invalid. (Impossible to do)
Step 2. Determine if you want to respond to an invalid UA (see above)

A browser is compliant if it sends a DNT:1 ¡© it's the only sane way to look
at things. If the server decides NOT to honor the DNT setting, then it MUST
respond to the user that intent. That's what a protocol does, it
communicates. It's the current "lack of server side communication" that is
causing all the problems.

So I would say that it definitely needs to be talked about now vs. later.


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
Date:  Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:22 AM
To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc:  Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, W3
Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice

> En route to Seattle now, so we can talk about this later if need be.
> 
> The Online Publishers Association is opposed to 4c. Some of our members may
> decide to honor the DNT signal regardless of whether the UA is deemed
> compliant. If publishers want to go above and beyond the call of duty, then
> they should be able to do that. Also, in general, we have all already agreed
> that first parties are largely exempt from the restrictions. This would
> constitute a new burden for publishers to differentiate between compliant and
> non-compliant browsers.
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:07 AM, "Peter Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the suggested changes to the
>> following.
>> 
>> Part III Explicit and Separate User Choice
>> <Normative>
>> 1.     A User Agent must obtain explicit, informed consent to turn on the DNT
>> header*
>> 
>> 2.     The User Agent must also make available via a link in explanatory text
>> where DNT is enabled to provide more detailed information about DNT
>> functionality
>> 
>> 3.     Any User Agent claiming compliance must have a functional
>> implementation of the browser exceptions in this specification
>> 
>> 4.     Servers MAY MUST respond to users that their UA is ¡°non-compliant¡± if
>> they believe this to be the case
>> 
>> a.     User Agents MUST relay Server responses to users to ensure
>> transparency
>> 
>> b.     Servers SHOULD MUST be prepared to defend why they have reached this
>> conclusion
>> 
>> c.      Servers that respond to 100% of DNT requests regardless of User Agent
>> details ARE NOT compliant with this recommendation
>> 
>> d.     Servers MAY MUST offer users additional information through a resource
>> link
>> 
>> 5.     Efforts to misled users to activate Do Not Track MAY also be seen as
>> ¡°non-compliant¡±
>> 
>> *NOTE ¡© The TPWG already agreed on this point
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Peter
>> ___________________________________
>> Peter J. Cranstone
>> 720.663.1752
>> 
>> 
>> From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:54 AM
>> To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
>> Cc: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice
>> Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:55:56 +0000
>> 
>>> Thank you for sending this Shane. While there are still some items we would
>>> like to see in the two documents that might not be reflected in the current
>>> industry proposal, in the spirit of cooperation and advancing the process
>>> IAB supports this approach. I look forward to discussing it this week.
>>> 
>>> Mike Zaneis 
>>> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
>>> (202) 253-1466
>>> 
>>> On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:05 AM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> TPWG,
>>>>  
>>>> Please find attached the detailed proposal text we©öll be reviewing tomorrow
>>>> afternoon (built upon the proposal outline I provided last week).
>>>>  
>>>> The following individuals, companies, and trade associations contributed to
>>>> this proposal:
>>>>  
>>>> Marc Groman & David Wainberg ¡© NAI
>>>> Alan Chapell ¡© Chapell & Associates
>>>> Heather West, Sean Harvey, & Ian Fette ¡© Google
>>>> Shane Wiley ¡© Yahoo!
>>>>  
>>>> There is considerable detail covering numerous topics in this proposal and
>>>> therefore it should not be consider an endorsement by all contributors to
>>>> all parts of this proposal.  That said, all contributors generally agree
>>>> with the direction and approach of this document.
>>>>  
>>>> We look forward to further discussion and fielding questions tomorrow
>>>> afternoon.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Shane
>>>> <Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice - W3C Seattle.docx>
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 15:41:44 UTC

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