- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:05:52 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Alan, while your argumentation may be compelling within undeclared neutral grounds, it isn't as convincing after the user has expressed the clear will to not be tracked/recorded/followed/profiled/classified/targeted. And this user has received a response saying: "We honor your expressed preference". If this acceptance now means: "We except with our fingers crossed behind our backs and will take advantage of an exception to have you tracked/recorded/followed/profiled/classified/targeted" then the average user will find that a bit confusing. An exception isn't an exception anymore if it is the default IMHO. If we accept that the exceptions we are discussing in a DNT=1 scenario are still exceptions, than those exceptions derive from the general rule: not tracking. And it is the nature of exceptions that they have to be justified as a departure from the general rule. And they have to be interpreted in a narrow way. Because otherwise, they aren't exceptions anymore but a change to the general rule. A change to the general rule would mean here that DNT=1 means DNT=unset which in turn would make all our efforts pretty futile. And I wouldn't want Shane to go through his excellent list of things a company must do for DNT compliance without any need to just have a fig leaf for further collection. So I'm sorry to say that the burden of argumentation in a DNT=1 scenario is with those claiming the exception and wanting to collect and use data. Sean and Shane have done a good job on why they want the data. I tried to explain we shouldn't collect that data (arguments to be improved). Ninja and Roy hinted at a solution by retention limitation and Jonathan hinted at a client side solution. I would rather like to discuss those concrete solutions than fundamentally question the exercise we are doing. Best, Rigo On Thursday 02 February 2012 12:17:25 Alan Chapell wrote: > I agree with much of what Shayne said - but will add the followingŠ. > > It seems like much of the discussion (on this topic at least) is a bit > one-sided. If we're going to ask industry to granularly explain why > certain data uses pass Jonathan's Compelling need test, then it seems fair > to ask Jonathan (and/or others) to be able to granularly demonstrate (for > example) how and to what extent client side frequency capping approaches > work. The Stanford team has clearly done some fantastic work here, but a > test using a relatively small game network may or may not translate > perfectly outside of the testing environment. And I think its fair to ask > for a clear demonstration of how these concepts can be applied by both the > MSFT's and Googles, as well as tier 2 and tier 3 companies. > > On that note, I'm concerned that much of what we're talking about > implementing will create all kinds of technical and logistical issues for > companies who don't have the resources of a Yahoo or Adobe. > > Has the group considered bringing in some invited experts from the > long-tail of industry to help ensure that this is something that they can > implement without hiring an army of tech consultants? >
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 14:08:34 UTC