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

Re: Support for ISSUE 143 - EDUCATED Consumer Choice Should Be REQUIRED

From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:49:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4FF7F821.2060500@schunter.org>
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Chris,


I am in the process of post-processing my emails ;-)

Did anything happen on this discussion / has it been resolved?
If not you may push it forward  by proposing text.

What I deem important is that the text defines meaning/intent without
freezing UI or text (if feasible). This will allow for more user agent
innovation.

Note that the same holds for DNT;0: If the publisher receives DNT;0 then
it is interesting to know
what consent this transports,too. AFAIK Rigo/Rob aim for a similar
standardisation for DNT;0.


Regards,
matthias

On 23/05/2012 22:58, Chris Mejia wrote:
> W3C Tracking Protection Working Group:
>
> A DNT choice mechanism is fundamentally flawed when it does not rest
> on the basic tenant of _user-educated and informed choice_. I'm
> concerned that this working group is setting up an impossible
> situation for compliancy:  without a clear _requirement_ for the user
> to be informed/educated about the choice they are making, at the point
> of that choice (in the user-interface), publishers who receive DNT:1
> signals will have no (up-front) way to understand what the user's
> ACTUAL intent was when making their choice, and thus will not
> understand how to "honor" such choices.  Without users having a common
> understanding of what it means to turn on DNT, users will be
> setting/sending the DNT:1 header flag for a myriad of different
> reasons, representing many different "choices," based on their
> individual understandings of what "tracking," "privacy," or
> "do-not-track" mean, as influenced (or not influenced) by the
> user-interface they were exposed to when making/setting their choice.
>  This 'many choices = one outcome' model is fundamentally flawed and
> does not serve the best interest of users or the websites they visit.
>
> I have heard the argument that "/users won't get-it/" or "/it's too
> complicated for users/" or "/users won't care/"; my reply is, "then
> why are we doing this in the first place?"  Which market requirement
> are we replying to with DNT:1 = MANY/CHOOSE?  I find it highly
> irresponsible and even reckless to put a [powerful] choice mechanism
> in front of users without providing users the qualified information
> and context necessary to understand what that choice represents/does,
> and how it will affect them and the websites/businesses they
> frequent/support.  It's akin to saying, "you might need this gun for
> personal defense- it's free, take it," but not letting people know
> what the gun does. "What happens when I pull this trigger?"  "Just
> take the gun." Reckless.
>
> In support of Open Issue 143
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143), I
> believe this working group's work-product should REQUIRE that users
> receive a qualified [by this group] message regarding their DNT
> choice, AS that choice is presented to the user in the UI, for ALL
> programs that seek COMPLIANCE with this initiative— the technical
> requirement of this disclosure should be a mandated and required
> component of compliance.  Failing the inclusion of this important
> component, compliance (the general compliance document) should not be
> contemplated at all.  Adding the notion/suggestion of informed consent
> to a "best practices" document/addendum is not nearly sufficient; it
> leaves open too many loopholes will introduce market confusion.
>
> Some members of this working group believe that the "solution" to this
> problem is for publishers to ascertain a user's actual choice
> expression/intention by messaging all users who transmit the DNT:1
> header flag, asking the silly question, "I see you have chosen not to
> be tracked, so I just wanted to re-confirm, do you REALLY not want to
> be tracked?" allowing for an "exception" when a user answers "oh no, I
> didn't really mean THAT."  Come on all… Why do you want to push the
> burden of informing consumers, downstream onto publishers?  The end
> game of your flawed "logic" is that the Web becomes a battlefield of
> annoying privacy pop-up land mines for consumer to navigate— a battle
> played out on publisher pages, and at publisher's expense.  Doesn't it
> make MUCH more sense to require that the original choice be made by
> adequately informed users, up-front in the DNT user-interface, at the
> point of choice?
>
> Finally, I want to point out that user education and informed consent
> are basic core tenants of the interactive advertising industry's
> [DAA's] self-regulation program for online behavioral advertising
> (http://www.aboutads.info/)— a program that's been very successful and
> praised as a model for all industry, by government (including The
> White House, FTC and Dept. of Commerce), regulators, lawmakers and
> consumers alike.  Thus far, those basic tenants are missing in DNT.
>  If we are going to do this, then let's get it right— we all have a
> responsibility to get it right, and serve the BEST interests of
> _informed_ consumers.
>
> Chris Mejia, IAB/DAA
>
>
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2012 08:50:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:52 UTC