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 07:27:38 -0400
To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC5B8AAE.1FA78%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
No apologies necessary. I understand your position on this, Tamir. I
appreciate your insights, but this is an area where we may simply have to
agree to disagree.

I am fundamentally opposed to the concept (espoused by more than a few on
this list) that while IE10 doesn't adequately provide for user choice, or
does so poorly, that the rest of the industry is just supposed to
recognize their DNT signal anyway.


Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates
917 318 8440






On 8/22/12 8:38 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:

>Alan, I am not blaming third parties,and I apologize if this seemed
>implicit in my comment. I'm saying the current spec has a flaw, which is
>that it does not handle borderline UA compliance issues very well.
>
>I saw the Win8 example as an attempt by MSFT to comply with the spec
>requirements while still respecting user preferences for privacy. While
>I personally have an issue with pre-selection as a means of gaining
>express preference, it is certainly a commonly used mechanism right now
>for expressly seeking user preferences.
>
>Even if you feel this is still a 'clear case' of non-compliance, there
>will certainly be  many others that are not. So it's not so much whether
>the IE10 signal will be accepted or not by third party advertisers that
>I find most problematic from a trust perspective, but the fact that the
>spec leaves it open to any third party advertiser to blacklist UAs on
>what are definitely going to be some tough calls.
>
>
>On 8/22/2012 8:27 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> 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 11:28:09 UTC

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