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: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:01:23 +0000
Message-ID: <241063670-1345680052-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1063806350-@b15.c1.bise6.blackberry>
To: "James Grimmelmann" <james.grimmelmann@gmail.com>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Cc: "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca>, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
James,

To get where I think you want us to go, were going to need much clearer messaging from the browsers and othets re: functionality of DNT. 

Cheers,


Alan Chapell
917 318 8440

-----Original Message-----
From: James Grimmelmann <james.grimmelmann@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:53:45 
To: Dobbs, Brooks<Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Cc: Tamir Israel<tisrael@cippic.ca>; Alan Chapell<achapell@chapellassociates.com>; Grimmelmann, James<James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>; Roy T. Fielding<fielding@gbiv.com>; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)<public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT  headers

Brooks, you are taking my point out of context.  I explained that it is contested whether widespread use of DNT headers will result in more privacy, because people disagree about what "privacy" is and because it is undetermined how the advertising ecosystem will evolve.
 
It is not, I hope, contested that when many users ask not to be tracked they are doing so because it is a matter of privacy, as they understand it.  That was Tamir's point, and that is the entire reason why there is even a working group on this process.

James

On Aug 22, 2012, at 5:35 PM, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:

> Tamir,
> 
> You are obviously free to personally conclude whatever outcome you feel is
> likely from DNT: 1, but as James (not I) points out, it is highly
> contested if widespread DNT: 1 is or is not privacy enhancing.
> 
> Just agreeing on the objective is hard enough.  Objectively DNT: 1 has
> certain meanings.  Let's look for agreements there before we go to the
> subjective, attenuated, value judgement as to if DNT:1 is or is not likely
> to be privacy enhancing.
> 
> I'll stop beating the dead horse with that.
> 
> -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 8/22/12 5:08 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I do not agree with this. DNT-1 is a general indication that a user does
>> not wish to be tracked or, alternatively, that they want privacy in
>> their browsing. I'm sorry, but I do not see another way to interpret this.
>> 
>> On 8/22/2012 4:55 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
>>> We are in agreement that funding will continue, so in the end DNT: 1
>>> will be a choice about how you want to pay, not if your going to.  I am
>>> not hearing any discussion about a more privacy friendly form of funding
>>> than
>>> advertising, so it seems a stretch to assume that a new, heretofore
>>> unknown, way of funding replaces it which is necessarily more privacy
>>> protective.
>>> 
>>> -Brooks
>> 
>> We are NOT in agreement that this will be the result in every case. When
>> I set DNT-1, I am telling everyone that I do not wish to be tracked.
>> Some services may then ask me to opt back in, to choose an alternative
>> means of payment, or to agree to an alternative means of tracking. But I
>> can say no to any or all of these on a case by case basis -- already a
>> vast privacy improvement over the free for all that currently exists. So
>> I simply do not see how a DNT-1 can be anything *other* than an
>> indication of a preference for privacy.
>> 
> 


Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 00:01:23 UTC

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