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

Re: ACTION-172: Write up more detailed list of use cases for origin/origin exceptions

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:48:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8eo12HtdPskEVAFNfex7zES22v4GzqK9jXMTazWBxy3uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> Ian,
>
> if you ask for out of band messages, this mainly says we give up on
> technology and return to the legalese. As DNT is a communication mechanism,
> saying I have to communicate otherwise means, you've given up. I'm not
> there
> yet. I will try to reply in detail to your arguments as far as I have
> arguments beyond what Nick already said.
>
>
I don't see it giving up on technology. It's a question of where do you
want to maintain the list of exceptions? With the site, or with the
browser? We seem to have implied that both are OK (e.g. we have already
allowed out of band exceptions). You can also have the site return DNT:0
for requests it believes have an out-of-band exception, which will still
let the user do auditing.


> On Monday 30 April 2012 11:07:33 Ian Fette wrote:
> > > * Companies that want to distinguish their limited list of
> third-parties
> > > Some companies may wish to put users at ease or distinguish their
> > > practices from competitors by requesting exceptions for an explicit
> list
> > > of third-party partners rather than an open-ended site-wide exception.
> > > (As suggested by Shane in DC.)
> >
> > Couldn't this be done in an out-of-band manner? I doubt you are just
> going
> > to call RequestException() when the user goes to the homepage. Probably
> > you message something to them explaining why you want the exception. You
> > could explain your limited use of third parties here. (You could also
> > make it available at a well-known URI).
>
> Calling RequestException() is your friend. It allows you to recover a
> client
> that would otherwise be lost. It allows you to overcome the pop-up
> nightmare
> as exemplified by the IAB Europe demo site. And there is no explanation to
> make as the thing is only about tracking. So if it asks, it asks about
> tracking. There aren't enough semantics for big explanations. We may note
> down some nice euphemisms in some UI How-to note so that it says e.g. "We
> need to know about your history to provide personalized services to you".
> Because if the UI would pop-up saying:
> <big finger in your direction>WE WANT TO TRACK YOU!</big finger in your
> direction> 99% of users will close their browser and shut down their
> computer. But I'm confident that we have a sufficient number of marketeers
> in the room to sweeten the message.
>
>
You haven't made it all clear here why an in-browser exception would be
preferable to an out-of-band exception. You could "recover" the user either
way.


> Rigo
>
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 16:49:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC