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: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:01:59 -0400
Message-ID: <50358107.1020103@cippic.ca>
To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Mike --

When I say positions are not relevant I mean positions with respect to 
MSFT's current compliance are not. Let me explain why.

Apple's position may or may not be that MSFT may now be compliant. 
However, the very core of the problem, from my perspective, is that the 
current DNT specification lets all third party advertisers determine 
this for themselves. So if Apple thinks MSFT is compliant, they will 
respect their DNT-1 signals. If IAB does not think so, they will not.

In this sense, it is not relevant what Apple's actual position is. 
That's the core of the problem -- you can each come to different 
conclusions about that very question. As far as I can tell, David's 
position is not that there should be any change to this feature of the 
DNT specification.

Best,
Tamir

On 8/22/2012 8:33 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:
> Of course positions are relevant. When the most valuable company in the history of the world and a key gatekeeper of the Internet dismisses an important issue in this process because "a site can simple deny access", and that assumption misses the fundamental point that the spec is focused on third parties and not publishers.  I want to know the underpinnings for that misguided dismissal.
>
> All of this is especially important given the not-so-veiled threats from Apple at out Seattle face-to-face meeting that they would, "take other actions" against third parties if this group did not come to agreement on DNT. Their position is central to the debate when we are having substantive discussions and they seek to dismiss a competitive industry's economic interests and livelihood.
>
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP&  General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:21 PM, "Tamir Israel"<tisrael@cippic.ca>  wrote:
>
>> 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 01:02:34 UTC

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