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: TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT) <Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:38:12 +0100
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Alex Fowler <afowler@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Alan Chapell - Chapell Associates <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Message-ID: <4D30AC7C2C82C64580A0E798A171B4445D2C47723A@FRMRSSXCHMBSD1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Chris,

I can't speak for Alex here, but I'm just surpised by the example you chose:

   "Will they tell the sad (and maybe not so "quirky:) story where, without ad supported content, pay walls start popping up everywhere online…  and must start paying to access their favorite social media sites, play games that were once free, and pay for search."

Even without DNT, paywalls start popping up online. And as you probably know, search engines and social networks are primarly used in a first party context so they're not a good example either. As for the games they can easily turn to different business models and I'm not even sure that ads are their first source of money.
That being said, I don't understand this reaction to the video which is mostly about behaviorial targeting anyway.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone,

Vincent



________________________________________
From: Chris Mejia [chris.mejia@iab.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:31 PM
To: Alex Fowler; public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Alan Chapell - Chapell Associates
Subject: Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent    to   turn on a DNT signal

Alex, the Mozilla logo is at the end of the video, along with the statement "Take control of your online privacy. Firefox prioritizes principles over profit".  Does this not mean that Mozilla endorses the assertions and positions expressed in the video?  If not, then have you lost copyright and trademark controls regarding the Firefox brand?

Also, please have a look at the press release (http://media.wix.com/ugd//622630_545469745f4c6429bddf261e45f1f88b.pdf) where it states:

"After calling on creatives and filmmakers around the world to help tell the story of Mozilla Firefox, the biggest non-for-profit web browser, the competition received over 450 submissions from thousands of filmmakers worldwide."

"Mozilla will now be working with the winning team on plans to incorporate their work into a global marketing campaign."

The winner of this contest apparently received $60k from Mozilla to expand this video into a global campaign for Mozilla.  So I'm just wondering if you plan on working with the film makers to tell a balanced story?  Will they tell the sad (and maybe not so "quirky:) story where, without ad supported content, pay walls start popping up everywhere online…  and must start paying to access their favorite social media sites, play games that were once free, and pay for search. Will that side of the story be told Alex?  THAT story might also resonate with people.

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




On 11/19/12 10:17 PM, "Alex Fowler" <afowler@mozilla.com<mailto:afowler@mozilla.com>> wrote:

Against my better judgement, I can't resist the urge to respond, Alan.

A piece of community contributed video by a filmmaker in Ireland is
*not* a policy statement by Mozilla nor is it evidence that we're
engaged in misleading people. The most one can say is this video
establishes the topic of online tracking resonates with people, as the
judges for this award were Ed Norton, Shauna Robertson (Meet the
Parents), Jeffrey Silver (Tron: Legacy) and Ben Silverman (The Office)
and a group of young filmmakers. See
https://firefoxflicks.mozilla.org/en-US/judges. The festival rules
didn't say anything about the topics people should explore and no
Mozilla employees were involved in selecting finalists/winners.

On 11/19/12 9:00 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
David - I think its reasonable to ask those looking for exceptions to
communicate the essence of the proposed exchange in a way that is accurate
and complete.

I could not disagree more with your assertion that "browsers cannot 'hide'
whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead
anyone." There are a number of examples that indicate otherwise...

Just curious - how would you characterize this video? It apparently was
good enough to win an award from Mozilla, so it seems fair to say that
Mozilla thinks its an appropriate depiction of tracking.
http://www.seanoriordantv.com/#!FIREFOX/c1xhv







On 11/19/12 6:32 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote:

On Nov 18, 2012, at 10:03 , Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto: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?
Alan

I take it, following this thread, that you OK with even stronger language
for sites, when they are getting consent for an exception?  Sites have
every incentive to get users to agree, and it's easy to call the API to
log the exception with the UA.  In contrast, the browsers cannot 'hide'
whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead
anyone.



On 11/18/12 12:35 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>> wrote:

On Thursday 15 November 2012 15:46:14 David Singer wrote:
³The 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.²
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




David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 23:38:54 UTC

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