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: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:39:19 -0800
Cc: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <B71E8A7C-8C76-4968-A840-CDD9FD8CF814@apple.com>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Yes, exactly.  The described behavior is not ‘misleading’, it is explicitly defined to be non-conformant, earlier in the spec., so I proposed deleting the sentence.

On Jan 15, 2014, at 16:51 , Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:

> 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.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 01:39:47 UTC

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