W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [resend] re-phrasing the note in Disregard; ISSUE-197

From: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 19:33:03 +0100
Message-ID: <52CD99DF.2000308@w3.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
David, thank you. I updated the wiki page with your text proposal: 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_Disregard_signal

Ninja

Am 08.01.14 19:25, schrieb David Singer:
> I was asked to suggest changed text for this.  Currently the paragraph reads:
>
> 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.
>
> and it was pointed out that that this paragraph has problems
>
> It follows these two:
>
> A tracking status value of D means that the origin server is unable or unwilling to respect a tracking preference received from the requesting user agent. An origin server that sends this tracking status value must detail within the server's corresponding privacy policy the conditions under which a tracking preference might be disregarded.
>
> For example, an origin server might disregard the DNT field received from specific user agents (or via specific network intermediaries) that are deemed to be non-conforming, might be collecting additional data from specific source network locations due to prior security incidents, or might be compelled to disregard certain DNT requests to comply with a local law, regulation, or order.
>
>
>
> The second sentence, to my read, is redundant:  you are already *required* to explain a D signal, so "An origin server that responds with D in ways that are inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims regarding tracking” is not “misleading” but non-compliant.
>
> The first sentence is saying, to my read, that the specification authors expected that the signal would not be ‘normal’, and that if you find yourself in a situation where you are using it a lot, there may be a problem with the specification or your understanding.  Perhaps we need to say that instead:
>
> "Note: This specification was written assuming that the D tracking status value would be used only in situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception to normal behavior. If this turns out not to be the case, either the logic that is leading to the D signal may need re-examination, or this specification, or both."
>
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 18:33:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:21 UTC