- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:20:14 -0400
- To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'Dave Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
I think that this discussion is fairly... pointless. Privacy is not the concern of this group. Non-disabled users have privacy concerns all of the time, and if they want privacy, they check the privacy policy. Furthermore, there is already a fairly good mechanism for this in place, the much underutilized P3P system. Finally, for users that are *super* concerned about privacy at the server side there are anonymizers. Let's take an emotion-free look at this situation for one moment. If I go to WebMD and do a lot of search on, say, "diabetes", "insulin", etc., it could be inferred that I am quite possibly diabetic. And this isn't even an HTML issue. It's simply a "what requests originated from the same IP?" Why aren't we trying to keep servers from figuring out who is diabetic? Because *it isn't our concern*. Again, maintaining privacy is not an HTML issue, it is a Web browser and networking layer issue. I think that David Singer's original proposal, and all of the subsequent tweaks and comment on it all maintain sufficient amounts of "I would like a transcript" and no "I am blind" to ensure that a blind user would be making identical requests to someone who simply prefers to read. That is a better deal on privacy than, say, our WebMD user. I know when my fiancé has been using my computer, for example, because Amazon starts suggesting that I might want the latest Miley Cyrus CD... J.Ja > -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:49 PM > To: Henri Sivonen; HTML WG > Cc: W3C WAI-XTECH; Dave Singer > Subject: Re: Privacy implications of automatic alternative selection > (Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>) > > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:38:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> > wrote: > > > The privacy implications of using media queries came up on the > telecon. > > (The tacit assumption was that revealing that one has a given > disability > > is a privacy-sensitive matter.) > > > > The choice of alternative media streams gives the content provider > > information that correlates with the user's disabilities (unless all > > alternatives were downloaded so that the content provider couldn't > tell > > with alternative was actually consumed). > > > > If the user has to select from alternatives, the information about > the > > choice is leaked to the content provider at that point. > > > > Media queries (or any other automatic selection mechanism), on the > other > > hand, would allow content providers to probe the user's > > disability-correlated settings when the user visits a page without > > taking specific further action on the page. > > But the content provider doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to > discover > that some set of users is requesting only certain parts of the content. > And from there, with a simple login, it is easy for people at opera to > discover that I prefer the transcript of a meeting video to the whole > video. > > Disability has nothing to do with it. Users request what they want at a > given time. If I browse on my phone (and I do) then I make different > choices about what I want from YouTube to the things I ask for on my > PC. > Ditto the difference between being on a fat pipe in the US or Norway > and > being on a slow dodgy connection in the places I spend most of my life. > > As Raman said, an intelligently built site is not asking if I have a > disability. It may be that the user selects the same thing always, and > sets up their browser to automate that. Or it may be that they select > different things depending on where they are and what they are doing (a > high-quality braille display at a University Office is not the same as > a > screen-reader on a shared computer-centre machine, before we even > consider > something other than blindness). > > People are not interested to tell you their life history, they are > trying > to get a usable form of a meeting record, or a tax form, or some book > to > read their kid, or some movie their kid has been bugging them to find. > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 03:21:25 UTC