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

Tamir, it is browser makers who send non-compliant signals who will undermine trust. Blaming the third paties (who have little opportunity for direct communication with consumers) is a bit mis-directed. 


Cheers,


Alan Chapell
917 318 8440

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:21:32 
To: Mike Zaneis<mike@iab.net>
Cc: David Singer<singer@apple.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

Mike -- I think the main point is less about positions. Indeed, David 
said even before this when IE10 made their first announcement that he 
would not likely reject a valid-looking DNT-1 (even if it came from 
non-compliant IE10 : P). I think this is more about the fact that the 
current spec is allows third parties to make what are highly subjective 
judgments regarding UA implementations and essentially veto anything 
they don't like while claiming compliance.

This IE10/Win8 scenario highlights that. Perhaps the initial IE10 
default announcement was a 'clear cut' case of non-compliance. But now 
MSFT is doing something different that is at least a _bit_ murkier. And 
we can anticipate even murkier scenarios down the road.

While I understand how this ability to veto might be compelling to third 
partie advertisers, I really think it will undermine trust in the DNT 
signal (and what it is designed to achieve) in a serious way.

Best,
Tamir

On 8/22/2012 8:06 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:
> David, you continue to reference "the site", but all of this impacts the multibillion dollar third party industry, so can you couch Apple's position on DNT in terms of impact on the third parties?
>
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP&  General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:30 PM, "David Singer"<singer@apple.com>  wrote:
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> as I think I have said before, sites have always had, and will continue to have, the ability (right?) to reject visits from whatever user-agents they like for whatever reasons they like *whether or not we rat-hole on this* in either discussion or specification.  So, while I can live with the reasons to write the bland 'don't enable by default' statement, I really feel that going further is unproductive.
>>
>> (It is a little ironic that we used to experience this kind of UA-sensitivity with sites that insisted "only IE6 may enter", and now, it seems, there is a risk of sites that say "no IE10 beyond this point" :-().
>>
>> I do not see anything productive in us trying to define what is, or is not, or might be considered as, or not, perhaps, a default.  It doesn't make a material difference to the specification, the site designs, the UA designs, or anything.  It just means more emails to read and respond to.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:23 , Tamir Israel<tisrael@cippic.ca>  wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a screenshot.
>>>
>>> Again, I personally agree there are problems with relying on this type of mechanism as 'express user preference', but in spite of that, it is commonly used in a lot of contexts.
>>>
>>> Second, I'm wondering if people feel that by rejecting this approach, we are veering into UI-constraint land?
>>>
>>> On 8/22/2012 6:15 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>> Perhaps we should wait to see the actual product; we may be off into hypothetical weeds here.
>>> <win8.png>
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 00:27:11 UTC