W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:46:39 -0400
To: "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC5A7633.1F9BC%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
James - 

Judging by the email thread over the past couple of days, it seems like
that phrase is creating some confusion - even amongst the working group.
Perhaps we can find a better term for our documents so as not to confuse
the marketplace.

Perhaps "deliberate choice for the DNT signal"?


Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates
917 318 8440






On 8/22/12 10:40 AM, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
wrote:

>Brooks, 
>
>The language "choice for privacy" has been in the TPE working drafts
>since last year.  It is there as a way to describe certain kinds of user
>actions in configuring a user-agent that can reasonably be understood to
>include a "deliberate choice by the user" about a tracking preference.
>This reflects the real-world fact that many users who choose to enable
>the DNT: 1 header will do so out of a desire for privacy.  Thus, a user
>agent or extension could offer a more general-purpose privacy setting
>"that then implicitly includes a tracking preference."
>
>Don't worry: I'm not (and I don't think anyone else is) asking the group
>to take an official stance on whether widespread DNT use will be good for
>privacy or bad for privacy.  That's highly contested and highly
>subjective.  The language shows up in the context of "Determining User
>Preference" and that's how I'm reading it: to address the question of
>whether IE 10's DNT: 1 signals will reflect deliberate choices by users
>about tracking.
>
>James
>
>On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:41 AM, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
>wrote:
>
>> James and all,
>> 
>> I think we are moving down the road of making some very dangerous
>> assumptions here.  We are getting in the habit of referring to sending
>>the
>> signal DNT: 1 as "a choice for privacy".  This is a highly subjective
>> statement and not necessarily true.
>> 
>> Choosing DNT: 1 is a signal to an origin server that it must follow the
>> rules as established by the compliance doc with all the resulting
>> treatments to the UA.  This may result in initial outcomes that many
>>users
>> will see as privacy enhancing.  However, it may also channel UAs to
>> different website payment schemes (non-ad supported) or move people
>> towards advertising tools run by parties with a PII relationship to the
>> user who are able to get out of band exceptions; neither would likely to
>> be called "a choice for privacy".  This is not hypothetical at all.  If
>>a
>> website needs N million dollars a year to provide content and service
>>and
>> that funding is cut to a third by DNT, they will seek one of those two
>> roads, neither of which makes a lot of sense to call "a choice for
>> privacy".  
>> 
>> Let's keep this conversation where it should be.  A "preference" means a
>> user's desire for his/her transaction to be processed by the recipient
>> server in accordance with the rules established for that signal by the
>> compliance doc.  If an individual user, with individual use patterns, at
>> any given time finds that to be "a choice for privacy" then so it is -
>>for
>> her.  I doubt that the person asked for a credit card or to identify
>> himself for an out of band exception to view a previously ad supported
>> site will be as cavalier with the word choice.
>> 
>> -Brooks    
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
>> Wunderman Network
>> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
>> brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This email ¡© including attachments ¡© may contain confidential
>>information.
>> If you are not the intended recipient,
>> do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
>> immediately and delete the message.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/21/12 10:43 PM, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I disagree; this is far from a "clear" case.  Here is the coming IE 10
>>> setup process as described by Microsoft (cutting and pasting a bit):
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> In the Windows 8 set-up experience, customers will be asked to choose
>>> between two ways of configuring a number of settings: ©øExpress
>>>Settings©÷
>>> or ©øCustomize.©÷
>>> 
>>> Customers will receive prominent notice that their selection of Express
>>> Settings turns DNT ©øon.©÷ In addition, by using the Customize approach,
>>> users will be able to independently turn ©øon©÷ and ©øoff©÷ a number of
>>> settings, including the setting for the DNT signal.  A ©øLearn More©÷
>>>link
>>> with detailed information about each recommended setting will help
>>> customers decide whether to select Express Settings or Customize.
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> And here is the language from the August 14 TPE draft:
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> The basic principle is that a tracking preference expression is only
>>> transmitted when it reflects a deliberate choice by the user. ...
>>> 
>>> A user agent must have a default tracking preference of unset (not
>>> enabled) unless a specific tracking preference is implied by the
>>>decision
>>> to use that agent. ...
>>> 
>>> We do not specify how tracking preference choices are offered to the
>>>user
>>> or how the preference is enabled: each implementation is responsible
>>>for
>>> determining the user experience by which a tracking preference is
>>> enabled. For example, a user might select a check-box in their user
>>> agent's configuration, install an extension or add-on that is
>>> specifically designed to add a tracking preference expression, or make
>>>a
>>> choice for privacy that then implicitly includes a tracking preference
>>> (e.g., Privacy settings: high). The user-agent might ask the user for
>>> their preference during startup, perhaps on first use or after an
>>>update
>>> adds the tracking protection feature.
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> There is a plausible argument that selecting Express Settings after
>>>being
>>> given prominent notice that this will turn DNT on is both a "deliberate
>>> choice by the user" and "a choice for privacy that then implicitly
>>> includes a tracking preference" that the user-agent "ask[s] the user
>>>for
>>> ... during startup."  And because the user chooses to use Express
>>> Settings, there is also a plausible argument that IE 10 will "have a
>>> default tracking preference of unset."
>>> 
>>> There are also some plausible counterarguments.  For example, it is
>>> possible that Microsoft's explanation of the effect of choosing Express
>>> Settings will not be clear and prominent enough to make selecting it a
>>> "choice for privacy."  It is also unclear what the default state of the
>>> DNT checkbox will be in "Customize."
>>> 
>>> I'm sure that this is not what many others on the list *intend* the TPE
>>> draft to mean, but based on what the draft currently *says*, IE 10's
>>> compliance is open to serious debate.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> James Grimmelmann              Professor of Law
>>> New York Law School                 (212) 431-2864
>>> 185 West Broadway
>>> james.grimmelmann@nyls.edu<mailto:james.grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
>>> New York, NY 10013    http://james.grimmelmann.net
>>> 
>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Roy T. Fielding
>>> <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>> 
>>> Roy your apache example, as I understood it, applies in clear cases of
>>> non-compliance. I don't think there's ever going to be such a clear
>>>case
>>> as in reality implementations are going to be quite varied and browser
>>> sniffing of the kind you're suggesting will lead to browser wars. Case
>>>in
>>> point:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do
>>>-n
>>> ot-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx
>>> 
>>> Which is a clear case of non-compliance.  If pre-selecting an
>>> option in a dialog box is not sufficient to gain prior consent,
>>> then it certainly isn't sufficient to satisfy:
>>> 
>>> "The basic principle is that a tracking preference expression
>>>  is only transmitted when it reflects a deliberate choice by
>>>  the user. In the absence of user choice, there is no tracking
>>>  preference expressed."
>>> 
>>> Browser wars is not a problem I have in HTTP, because of the
>>> Apache principle regarding open standards.  If you want to change
>>> the standard, feel free to make proposals to that effect within
>>> the process defined by this WG.  Please do not continue this
>>> argument about honoring deliberately broken UAs; you are wasting
>>> our time, as this WG has even less ability to change Apache's
>>>principles
>>> than it does to impose implementation of a voluntary standard.
>>> 
>>> ....Roy
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:54 UTC