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