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

RE: Agenda for 07 November 2012 call - V01

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:21:09 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W41B24A3E874F3B6C10F3D6AA640@phx.gbl>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Shane,

I represent myself as a member of the public.  My understanding is that this list is open to the public, and do not believe my comments are inappropriate - if I am mistake then you have my apologies and I will not post again?  When this spec. is done you will all need to sell the outcome to the public, so why not be realistic now.

I am also a member and chair of w3c PUA CG (which is not saying much) and if necessary I am prepared to publish a browser fork that corrects any privacy issues and would like to understand how DNT would interacts with such settings.  I would note that PUA HTML will draw a line of privacy between UA presentation and and shared UA state - this may have implications for some DNT discussion, for example advertising measurements that depend on covert monitoring of the UA will go dark soon.

cheers
Fred 

From: wileys@yahoo-inc.com
To: fredandw@live.com; public-tracking@w3.org
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:44:03 -0800
Subject: RE: Agenda for 07 November 2012 call  - V01

Fred, Thank you for your thoughts.  The Working Group generally agreed to this approach in Amsterdam but based on your comments its clear youíre not supportive.  As youíre not part of the Working Group could you please help us understand who you represent in these conversations?  Its fine if itís just yourself but itís helpful to gain more perspective if you represent a larger group or organization. Thank you again,Shane From: Fred Andrews [mailto:fredandw@live.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 3:35 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: RE: Agenda for 07 November 2012 call - V01  > 4.  Discussion of new general approach to exceptions sketched in Amsterdam:
>      http://www.w3.org/mid/CAF4kx8fAXUE-iVBs75tX-t4dd0PX4VJGhXpB=DZA9FAD-u6e9g@mail.gmail.com
 >    Core changes:
 >        - Main responsibility of Exception UI is with the sites
 >        - Sites 'store' exceptions via API in browser
 >        - Browser may validate exceptions with their users to ensure they are OK with it
 >    Question:
 >       - Feedback?
 >       - OK to pursue this approach from now on?

What a great advancement!  Exceptions now become opt-out.  When a user visits a website their
UA is filled with exceptions that the user is expected to opt out of.

Users should not have to deal with a load of marketing crap from each an every website wanting
them to add exceptions.  The user agent is their known friend, and lets not twist it otherwise.  A UA
will likely want an interface with user trusted third party curated ratings of websites, and will want
to give users other options such as 'don't even touch this website' or 'this website works fine without
this tracker, don't believe their marketing crap' etc and they are not going to get this from the website
itself, now are they?

Here's an idea, make it opt-in.  When these APIs are called the exceptions are added to a pending list
for the user to review and opt-in - a small icon on the UI, that can be well ignored.

cheers
Fred 		 	   		  
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 23:21:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC