- From: (unknown charset) Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:20:59 +0200
- To: (unknown charset) public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Team, my earlier suggestion (wrt the TPE doc) was to post two things at a well-known URL on each site that wants to support DNT: a) A mandatory machine readable simple code that states whether a site follows DNT or not b) An optional URL to obtain more information (in a human readable way). As mentioned during the call, I'd like to gather input why such a simplistic proposal does not work. Regards, matthias On 10/26/2011 5:53 PM, Justin Brookman wrote: > Given that you acknowledge that a response header and/or > machine-readable file also create an actionable hook for enforcement, > I don't understand the resistance to a human-readable statement that > does not rely on a user agent to interpret (apart from rendering the > web page). It does not create any additional liability on the part of > the network. As I said, I suppose I could live with an > acknowledgement elsewhere as long as there was some sort of mandated > response SOMEWHERE, but it's better from a user perspective if there's > also a place to go to find out in plain English if the company is > complaint with this spec, and I don't see why this is a heavy lift. > > Justin Brookman > Director, Consumer Privacy Project > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > tel 202.407.8812 > fax 202.637.0969 > justin@cdt.org <mailto:justin@cdt.org> > http://www.cdt.org > @CenDemTech > @JustinBrookman > > > On 10/26/2011 11:23 AM, David Wainberg wrote: >> I totally support verifiability and accountability. However, I do >> not think this standard has to accomplish both, but rather can >> provide the tools to do so. >> The standard will be released into a larger context. It is not this >> group's or the W3C's role, in my opinion, to create a regulatory >> regime for online advertising. It is out of scope to create legal >> requirements as part of the standard. A flag in the header, or a >> machine readable file in a well-known location are logical technical >> additions to the spec, that would provide useful feedback to >> users/clients, and would support the efforts of relevant authorities >> to do enforcement. >> >> One other thing I want to clarify. You said, "the spec needs to lay >> out how to communicate to consumers that the header is being >> respected." I disagree. The spec can lay out a technical means to >> communicate that an entity intends to respect the header. There is >> no way to communicate whether it is actually respected. (This is an >> important distinction, in my view, because it goes to evaluating >> proposals for responses.) >> >> On 10/25/11 5:50 PM, Justin Brookman wrote: >>> A lot of this effort is dedicated to verifiability --- isn't that >>> why we've spent so much time discussing the sending of compliance >>> headers? Having an accountable statement of compliance is another >>> effort at that. >>> I suppose you could make an argument that it should be in the >>> technical spec instead of the compliance spec (though I would >>> disagree), but especially if third-party header responses are >>> deemed optional or a Bad Idea, the spec needs to lay out how to >>> communicate to consumers that the header is being respected. >>> If the header just flies into the blue with no standardized way >>> to disclose compliance, this process seems destined to fail; if >>> nothing else, privacy policy disclosure should be considered as an >>> alternative to automated header responses. >>> Justin Brookman >>> Director, Consumer Privacy Project >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> tel 202.407.8812 >>> fax 202.637.0969 >>> justin@cdt.org <mailto:justin@cdt.org> >>> http://www.cdt.org >>> @CenDemTech >>> @JustinBrookman >>> >>> On 10/25/2011 5:16 PM, David Wainberg wrote: >>>> Section 6.4 of the Compliance and Scope document states, "In order >>>> to be compliant with this specification, an operator of a >>>> third-party domain must clearly and unambiguously assert in the >>>> privacy policy governing that domain that it is in compliance with >>>> this specification." Such a requirement is out of scope of this >>>> standard and should not be included in the strawman. While it may >>>> be in scope to create tools that facilitate auditing and >>>> enforcement by other entities, it is not the role of this >>>> technical standard to impose legal requirements for compliance. >>>> Any such requirements will come from entities with relevant >>>> authority, e.g. Congress or the FTC in the US. -- Dr. Matthias Schunter, MBA IBM Research - Zurich, Switzerland Ph. +41 (44) 724-8329, schunter(at)acm.org PGP 989A A3ED 21A1 9EF2 B005 8374 BE0E E10D VCard: http://www.schunter.org/schunter.vcf
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 17:21:29 UTC