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

Re: RESENT: Batch Closing of Issues against TPE [Deadline for validating can-live-with consensus: August 20]

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:16:36 -0400
Message-ID: <5038FA64.2040601@cippic.ca>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Thanks Matthias (and Justin and Roy) for the clarification.

This may be really nitpicky, but it might be a good idea to add a direct 
reference in the TPE to the out-of-band consent requirement set out in 
the TCS, just so there's no confusion when people turn to 
implementation. Specifically, it should be clear that Tk: c means 'I 
believe I have consent /that conforms to the requirements on out of band 
consent/'. I think this will help many of those implementing (say, 
smaller implementers who may not have legal departments, etc.) be more 
aware that compliance requires out or band consent to be an 'explicit 
reflection of user choice and preference'.

Along the same thread: the TPE seems to generally avoid using 'consent' 
terminology and instead refers to 'expression of user preference'. While 
I personally prefer sticking to 'consent' as a touchstone, more 
important for clarity purposes is to stay consistent. So where the 
compliance/scope document means to say 'out of band consent MUST reflect 
an explicit expression of user preference', it instead says 'third 
parties may gain explicit and informed consent by other means'.

Best,
Tamir

On 8/25/2012 2:57 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote:
> Hi Tamir,
>
>
> ISSUE-75: How do companies claim exemptions and is that technical or not?
>
> is indirectly affected in the following way:  The agreements below say
> that there should be a technical mechanism (via Javascript) to ask for
> exceptions. As a consequence, we specified such an API into the spec.
>
> I.e., indirectly wrt ISSUE-75 we decided that there should be at least
> this technical approach. This does not preclude any other approaches. In
> particular we also have agreement to allow out of band consent.
>
> Does this answer your question and mitigate your concern?
>
>
> Regards,
>   matthias
>
> On 20/08/2012 20:52, Tamir Israel wrote:
>> Can someone please confirm that these issues (and particularly section
>> 5.3.3 of the TPE) do not foreclose or pre-decide ISSUE-152 and
>> ISSUE-75 (out of band consent)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tamir
>>
>> On 8/15/2012 12:16 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/47
>>> ISSUE-47: Should the response from the server indicate a policy that
>>> describes the DNT practices of the server?
>>> RESOLUTION:
>>> - A policy attribute at the well-known URI may point to a site-wide
>>> policy (Section 5.4.1)
>>> - The response header may identify a more specific policy at a
>>> different URL (Section 5.3.2)
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/107
>>> ISSUE-107: Exact format of the response header?
>>> RESOLUTION:
>>> - Revised response header values in Section 5.2 and syntax in 5.3
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2012 16:17:07 UTC

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