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

Re: ISSUE-33, ACTION-59: exemptions exposed to users

From: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:22:28 -0800
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB4F5D18.10852%blsaws@gmail.com>
I agree. Services that describe the nature of sites so the user can decide
which they are interested or trust (what if I have a fear of goldfish -
shudder) are out of band re DNT and an area of relationship management
that we should not hinder with DNT.

On 1/30/12 7:24 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>I think your conclusion is right.  Except for explicit in-band or
>out-of-band opt-in, I don't think the user gets to tell services what
>exceptions apply; services tell users what they claim.  And the selection
>of what sites to give opt-in is out of scope; the user works that either
>with their UA for in-band opt-ins, and with the sites for out-of-band
>The response header tells the user what is claimed; if the user (user
>agent) doesn't know they agree, they can go ahead and question/explore --
>again, out of band.
>A user is at liberty, out of scope to us, to tell their user-agent "opt
>me in to services that deal with goldfish".  How the user-agent knows
>which services are goldfish-oriented will be a major subject of debate in
>the next meeting -- no, wait, it is out of scope.
>On Jan 30, 2012, at 14:48 , Nicholas Doty wrote:
>> In Brussels there was some doubt about what ISSUE-33 ("Complexity of
>>user choice (are exemptions exposed to users?)") meant and whether it
>>was a duplicate. Our minutes from opening the issue at Cambridge are a
>>bit vague, but here are my interpretations and my suggested resolution.
>> Per closure of ISSUE-37, we won't currently design granularity so that
>>the user can opt-in to tracking/targeting for certain interest
>>categories ('tracking my interests in travel is ok') or certain business
>>practices ('anonymized research only please').
>> There could also be a question about what level of granularity will be
>>exposed to the end user about responses from the tracker about exactly
>>which exemption they fall under. This is either:
>> (1) a tricky user interface question for browser vendors and therefore
>>out of scope, or
>> (2) a question about designing the fields of the response header and
>>therefore covered by ISSUE-107.
>> In either case, I think we can close ISSUE-33 and I've moved the issue
>>to Pending Review with this note. If you object (either because you
>>think ISSUE-33 means something else or because you disagree with this
>>reasoning for closing it), please reply.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>David Singer
>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 05:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:32 UTC