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

Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice

From: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:19:17 -0700
Cc: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4116D7EB-11CE-4C5A-ADCA-425273802B0D@blurryedge.com>
To: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>

I agree with OPA.  And I think this is very important.  There are devices that send DNT signals and those that receive them.

For those who receive them:  Everyone who gets DNT:1 needs to follow the rules in the standard. Whether it comes from a browser, AV company, etc. It is going to become a compliance nightmare if companies have any room for interpretation in whether they can honor DNT signals.  Every company is going to have a different opinion.   

For those who send them: There needs to be a *separate* process where the validity of any device's interpretation and conveyance of the user's intent is judged as being in compliance with the spec and in compliance with their messaging of that interpretation and conveyance to the user. 

I know there are people in the room who are on both sides of this and are trying to best serve both at the same time.   But as someone who is going to be asked whether doing X or Y complies, I can tell you it is going to be horrible (Engineer X will have read on some mailing list that it is ok to ignore signals if the user also has X installed; but what if they also have Z installed; what is all-purpose software? etc. etc.)

This is going to make great business for lawyers, but it is a bad, bad idea for a standard.

I am sorry I can't be there.  This is important work!

Lauren Gelman
BlurryEdge Strategies
415-627-8512

On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:22 AM, Chris Pedigo wrote:

> 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 we¹ll 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 18:19:52 UTC

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