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

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:24:39 +0000
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <5582740C-3C1A-4615-ABAC-F2E0BE54E126@apple.com>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
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 opt-ins.

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 Monday, 30 January 2012 15:25:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC