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

Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:16:00 +0000
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-ID: <7311AB05D142B6489F20AFA8DDAECAE8C42E6DD0@IAB-NYC-EX1.IAB.local>
To me, this is pretty simple and logical: there are requirements on
content servers and third parties, so there should be requirements on UAs
too.  What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.  Alan makes an
excellent point.

Safari's "Ask websites not to track me", similar to Mozilla's DNT:1
enabler UI (that sends DNT:1) is misleading, in that the user will
logically suppose that they are asking ALL websites not to track, not just
third parties.  And yet the DNT:1 signal being sent is really only
applicable to third parties-- per the draft spec.

So I think it's very reasonable to place requirements on the UAs to not
mislead users.  It's not only reasonable, it's responsible.

If Safari and others wanted to be accurate, their DNT-enabling checkboxes
would read "Ask third-parties not to track me."  You really can't even say
"third-party websites" can you?  Most of the third parties here aren't
represented via "websites."

I even wonder if these sorts of misleading UI statements are deceptive,
and cause significant market confusion with consumers?


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB




On 11/18/12 10:03 AM, "Alan Chapell" <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
wrote:

>I agree -- specifying exact wording isn't a great idea - but that's not
>what I'm suggesting.
>
>Setting the expectation that UA's communicate DNT functionality clearly
>and completely addresses the very real possibility that some UA's will
>characterize DNT functionality in a way that is a) unclear, b) filled with
>hyperbole, or those that c) enact DNT without even telling Users.
>
>While I think that public, marketplace and regulatory pressure might
>address c), I tend to doubt that they will address a) and b).
>
>I'm a bit surprised that this is so controversial. After all, the goal
>here is to provide consumer's with informed choice, correct?
>
>
>On 11/18/12 12:35 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday 15 November 2012 15:46:14 David Singer wrote:
>>> > ©øThe User Agent MUST make available explanatory text to provide more
>>> > detailed information about DNT functionality within easy and direct
>>> > access for the particular environment prior to DNT being enabled.©÷
>>> and all sites will, of course, be mandated to do the same or better for
>>> exception requests?
>>
>><joke>
>>YES! All sides MUST implement P3P to fulfill DNT! After 10 years, the
>>magic 
>>bullet to get ubiquituous P3P adoption.
>></joke>
>>
>>I thought we have always worked under the assumption that we do not
>>proscribe 
>>UA GUI. Because my experience is that we can write whatever we want into
>>a 
>>Specification, but UAs won' t necessarily honor that. UI is where
>>browsers 
>>compete. While some simple, well-tested proscribed text would probably
>>create 
>>some kind of a circuit where users better understand and adapt their
>>expectations, I don't see momentum.
>>
>>I rather think that it creates an eco-system where browser that promise
>>too 
>>much can be punished by users who are deceived and by sites responding
>>that 
>>they won't honor. And we'll see waves into one or the other direction
>>before 
>>it stabilizes. 
>>
>>Rigo
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 17:17:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC