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, 28 Nov 2012 18:35:16 +0000
To: "TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT)" <Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com>, "Alex Fowler" <afowler@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Alan Chapell - Chapell Associates <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Message-ID: <7311AB05D142B6489F20AFA8DDAECAE8C42FD763@IAB-NYC-EX1.IAB.local>
Hi Vincent,

I think we should move this discussion offline.  Upon further review, I
realize that this is probably not the appropriate forum for this
discussion, which really only relates to a single company's
policy/promotion of ideals.  We are here to solve DNT and I now see that
this particular discussion will not benefit that goal.  Accordingly and
respectfully, anyone who wants to further engage on this, should email me
offline (not on the W3C public forum).  I'll be happy to share my thoughts
offline from this group.

Thank You and Kind Regards,

Chris



On 11/21/12 3:38 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 Wednesday, 28 November 2012 18:36:20 UTC

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