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: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:49:22 -0500
To: "TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)" <Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com>, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Alex Fowler <afowler@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCD4F622.2663F%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Vincent - can you clarify what you mean by

"I don't understand this reaction to the video which is mostly about
behaviorial targeting anyway."


Thanks.



On 11/21/12 6:38 PM, "TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)"
<Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

>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:
>©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
>
>
>
>
>David Singer
>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 14:49:42 UTC

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