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

Re: Possibly closing ISSUE-197 without a call for objections --- delete last sentence

From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:51:05 -0500
Message-ID: <2558693867-518037504@mail.maclaboratory.net>
To: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
My mistake, David Singer's proposal was to eliminate the rest of the paragraph.  I had previously thought you had only wanted that one sentence gone (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0059.html) and were only concerned about the "exception to normal behavior" point.  But I'm not sure people feel strongly about needing to say that using D in ways that are inconsistent with stated claims is likely to be considered misleading.  Good luck arguing otherwise!  Does anyone object to removing it?  The language would read:

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.         
                  NOTE:           THIS SPECIFICATION WAS WRITTEN ASSUMING THAT THE D TRACKING           STATUS VALUE WOULD ONLY BE USED 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.
The capitalized language replaces this sentence in the prior         version: "Note that the D tracking status value in 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."

If people want to retain the sentence about inconsistent D responses being misleading (or otherwise object to David Singer's language), we can go to a Call for Objections.  Otherwise, we close.

David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com> , 1/15/2014 5:55 PM:
                   Hi Justin,
       
       Apologies if I misunderstood. I'm ok with David's language       replacing the para. I'm not ok with that final sentence about what       might be considered misleading. I thought we'd had agreement about       that one anyway on a previous call.
       
       -David
       
          On 2014-01-15 5:08 PM, Justin Brookman       wrote:
                        Based on today's call and subsequent discussion with David       Wainberg, I'm not sure we need to go to CfO on this one.  No one       expressed any objections on the call today, and David Wainberg has       responded that he's OK with the proposed revision.  Here is what       David Singer has proposed (CAPS language is new):       
              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.         
                  NOTE:           THIS SPECIFICATION WAS WRITTEN ASSUMING THAT THE D TRACKING           STATUS VALUE WOULD ONLY BE USED 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. 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.         
                       
              The capitalized language replaces this sentence in the prior         version: "Note that the D tracking status value in meant to be         used only in situations that can be adequately described to         users as an exception to normal behavior."       
              If you object to the revised language, let me know;         otherwise, we will close the issue without a call for         objections.          
    
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 00:51:39 UTC

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