- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:41:24 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51BA2E74.3000508@schunter.org>
Hi Alan, from a TPE perspective, this issue has been closed and Section 3 contains our normative text at this point. Regards, matthias On 13/06/2013 22:09, Alan Chapell wrote: > Hi John - > > I'm not sure I agree that there was consensus re: User Preference > language. It would more accurate to say that this language remained in > the documents for a period of time because those who challenged it > were told that any changes were out of scope of our charter. > > As we've made changes to the Compliance doc in this area, it also made > sense to revisit corresponding language in the TPE. > > From my perspective, simply implying a tracking preference in the name > of the plug-in or extension doesn't come close to ensuring that the > User has made an informed decisions with respect to DNT. > > Happy to discuss further if helpful. > > > > > From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org > <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>> > Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:08 PM > To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org <mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>> > Cc: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, > "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> Group" > <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> > Subject: Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec > Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> > Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:09:00 +0000 > > Indeed, there has long been this language in Section 3 of the TPE, > Determining User Preference: > > "A user agent /MUST/ have a default tracking preference of |unset| > (not enabled) unless a specific tracking preference is implied by > the decision to use that agent. For example, use of a > general-purpose browser would not imply a tracking preference when > invoked normally as "SuperFred", but might imply a preference if > invoked as "SuperDoNotTrack" or "UltraPrivacyFred". Likewise, a > user agent extension or add-on /MUST NOT/ alter the tracking > preference unless the act of installing and enabling that > extension or add-on is an explicit choice by the user for that > tracking preference. > > Looks to me like it's open season on any text that many of us > understood to represent consensus... > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org > <mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>> wrote: > >> I was just giving the historical context. The idea that a >> privacy-specific user agent could send DNT:1 without more >> disclosure had been agreed to for several months, and then was >> later revisited. Similar to the security language that had been >> worked out nearly a year ago . . . >> >> Please say that no one has an action item to redefine "party." :) >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net >> <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>> wrote: >> >>> Hi Justin, >>> >>> I don't believe we are in full agreement on this. Please see >>> the text that Alan and I submitted yesterday, on requirements >>> for agents sending/altering a user's preference expression. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Chris Mejia >>> Digital Supply Chain Solutions >>> Ad Technology Group >>> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB >>> >>> >>> On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Justin Brookman" >>> <jbrookman@cdt.org <mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>> wrote: >>> >>>> Previously, I thought we had agreement that selection of a >>>> special privacy-protective product or setting could imply >>>> consent to send DNT:1 This agreement is currently reflected in >>>> the TPE in Section 3: >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determining. >>>> For example, I believe that Safari turns on DNT:1 whenever >>>> someone engages "Private Browsing" mode, despite no specific >>>> language about Do Not Track: >>>> http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html >>>> >>>> However, that language/agreement may have been subsumed by more >>>> recent discussions. >>>> >>>> On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:15 AM, "Craig Spiezle" >>>> <craigs@otalliance.org <mailto:craigs@otalliance.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I apologize for possibly bringing up a closed issue, but do >>>>> you see a distinction between a browser or a privacy / >>>>> security enhancing product? I agree with what is proposed by >>>>> a browser, but see there might be other scenarios where the >>>>> consumer is making an implied decision when acquiring a third >>>>> party security / privacy add-on?. >>>>> Conceptually let's call the product Privacy and Data Protector >>>>> which by default out of the box offers "maximized protection >>>>> of your data collection and privacy". Could one argue that >>>>> one who purchases such a product in effect is making an >>>>> implied decision to use such functionality. Better yet >>>>> Ad-Block Plus? >>>>> *From:*Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com >>>>> <http://yahoo-inc.com/>] >>>>> *Sent:*Monday, June 10, 2013 7:17 AM >>>>> *To:*Alan Chapell; Peter Swire;public-tracking@w3.org >>>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> >>>>> *Subject:*RE: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec >>>>> Friendly amendment suggestion: >>>>> "...unless they have otherwise obtained consent from the user >>>>> to do so." >>>>> - Shane >>>>> *From:*Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com] >>>>> *Sent:*Monday, June 10, 2013 6:31 AM >>>>> *To:*Peter Swire;public-tracking@w3.org >>>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> >>>>> *Subject:*Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec >>>>> Thanks Peter. I'm still generally uncomfortable that DNT >>>>> doesn't place requirements on First Parties. >>>>> One item of particular concern that seems to have fallen off >>>>> the radar is the scenario where a party collects data in a >>>>> first party context and attempts to use it in a third party >>>>> context when DNT is enabled. I thought there was agreement on >>>>> this issue. However, I keep raising it, and it doesn't seem to >>>>> make it into the drafts. Perhaps its implied in the language >>>>> "... customize the content, services, and advertising in the >>>>> context of the first party experience." However, it is not >>>>> clear enough, IMHO. >>>>> To address, I offer the following language to Section 4 (First >>>>> Party Compliance). The new language is below. >>>>> First Parties /must not/ use data collected while a First >>>>> Party when acting as a Third-Party when DNT = 1. >>>>> Nick -- if I need to open up another issue on this, please let >>>>> me know. Thanks! >>>>> Alan >>>>> *From:*Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net >>>>> <mailto:peter@peterswire.net>> >>>>> *Date:*Monday, June 10, 2013 7:47 AM >>>>> *To:*"public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" >>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> >>>>> *Subject:*June Draft of the DNT compliance spec >>>>> *Resent-From:*<public-tracking@w3.org >>>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> >>>>> *Resent-Date:*Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:47:58 +0000 >>>>> >>>>> To the Working Group: >>>>> Attached please find a June Draft of the compliance spec. >>>>> The spec is also available at: >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-june.html >>>>> This draft builds directly on the Consensus Action Summary >>>>> from the Sunnyvale F2F. Working closely with W3C staff, >>>>> and based on numerous discussions with members of the WG, >>>>> this June Draft is my best current estimate of a document >>>>> that can be the basis for a consensus document in time for >>>>> Last Call. >>>>> The June Draft includes a number of_grammatical >>>>> and stylistic edits_to various provisions of the previous >>>>> working drafts. These sorts of edits were done in hopes >>>>> of adding clarity and good writing to the provisions. In >>>>> the spirit of humility, W3C staff and I recognize that >>>>> members of the WG may spot substantive objections to these >>>>> stylistic edits -- let us work within a constructive >>>>> spirit of the working group process to examine and, where >>>>> appropriate, make changes to these edits. >>>>> The Draft also addresses the_four task >>>>> areas_included in the Consensus Action Summary. In >>>>> proposing language in the June Draft, my intent and belief >>>>> was to make good substantive judgments about an_overall >>>>> package_that may achieve consensus, as well as >>>>> item-by-item judgments about what is substantively most >>>>> defensible within the context of the WG. Clearly, the >>>>> group will need to work through each piece of the text, >>>>> members can suggest alternatives, and we will need to >>>>> determine where and whether consensus exists. >>>>> The June Draft contains_normative text but not >>>>> non-normative text_. In part, this reflects my view that >>>>> we have the best chance to work constructively on a >>>>> relatively short amount of normative text. Proposed >>>>> non-normative text can be proposed for provisions in time >>>>> for Last Call. As a potentially useful alternative, W3C >>>>> has various mechanisms for publishing notes or other >>>>> documents that illuminate a standard. The best time for >>>>> detailed discussion of most non-normative text quite >>>>> possibly will be after Last Call. >>>>> The June Draft discusses_only items that the W3C >>>>> WG can address_. Clearly, the actions of others on these >>>>> issues may be relevant to the overall outcome. For >>>>> instance, the DAA has discussed changes to its code, >>>>> including on its market research and product development >>>>> exceptions. There has been discussion of a potentially >>>>> useful limit on any blocking of 3d party cookies for sites >>>>> that comply withDNT. There may also be new and useful >>>>> technical measures that would be important to the future >>>>> of advertising in a privacy-protective manner. The text >>>>> here, as indicated, addresses what would be within the >>>>> compliance spec itself. >>>>> W3C staff and I are working on further explanatory >>>>> materials that will seek to clarify the changes here, and >>>>> link the June Draft to the issues on the WG site. >>>>> The regular call this Wednesday will be an >>>>> opportunity for the Group to have an initialdiscussion of >>>>> the June Draft. To give everyone a chance to review this >>>>> material, we will not be seeking to close compliance >>>>> issues during this Wednesday's calls. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Peter >>>>> Prof. Peter P. Swire >>>>> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law >>>>> Ohio State University >>>>> 240.994.4142 >>>>> www.peterswire.net <http://www.peterswire.net/> >>>>> Beginning August 2013: >>>>> Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor >>>>> Law and Ethics Program >>>>> Scheller College of Business >>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> >>>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 20:53:05 UTC