W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Your concerns with ISSUE_197?

From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:44:59 -0500
Message-ID: <52A8887B.5090709@appnexus.com>
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
What are the certain and well-defined circumstances? I still don't 
understand the point of this sentence. If we remove this sentence, I 
could agree to closing the issue.

Note that the|D|tracking status value is meant to be used only in 
situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception to 
normal behavior. An origin server that responds with|D|in ways that are 
inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims regarding 
tracking is likely to be considered misleading.

On 2013-12-09 2:20 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> thanks for the feedback.
>
> The idea of the disregard signal was that organisation can choose to 
> disregard a DNT;1 signal under certain well-defined and non-common 
> circumstances. Examples mentioned were that an organisation may 
> disregard DNT;1 if they are certain that it does not reflect user 
> preference. To satisfy the privacy goal of "transparency" it is 
> important that they tell the users that their signal has been disregarded.
>
> To avoid mis-use (e.g., a site claiming compliance while always 
> sending "D"), the mentioned paragraph clarifies that the "D" signal 
> should be used only under constrained circumstances.
>
> If it is OK with you, I will close ISSUE-197. The only alternative is 
> to call for alternative proposals to see whether there are other text 
> proposals (that may or may not lead to a call for objections). Leaving 
> the issue open to see how other things evolve is not an option. 
> However, note that substantially new information can later be used to 
> re-open ISSUE-197 if needed.
>
>
> Regards,
> matthias
>
>
>
>
> Am 09.12.2013 16:02, schrieb David Wainberg:
>> For the "!" I am ok with it after recent changes.
>>
>> For "Disregard", first I'm not sure of the meaning or intent of the 
>> last para. Can someone clarify?
>>
>> "/Note that the D tracking status value is meant to be used only in 
>> situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception 
>> to normal behavior. An origin server that responds with D in ways 
>> that are inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims 
>> regarding tracking is likely to be considered misleading./"
>>
>> Second, I'd request we leave the issue open pending finalization of 
>> other aspects of the spec.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 2013-12-04 1:53 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>>
>>> on our call today, we did not have strong supporters for keeping 
>>> ISSUE-197 and ISSUE-161 open.
>>> Since you were not present, I would like to ask you to elaborate on 
>>> your concerns by email to understand them better.
>>>
>>> ISSUE-197 How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is 
>>> received? (Matthias, Jack Hobaugh, David Wainberg)
>>>
>>> We currently require that the potential reasons for sending 
>>> disregard signals must be documented in the privacy policy.
>>>
>>>
>>> What are your concerns with this resolution?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> matthias
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:45:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:03 UTC