Re: W3C says DNT by Default not compliant

Ahhhh, yes. Thanks Jonathan. I wasn't sure if you were the only one pursuing
this strategy with the press. If you are the only one, then your reference
to member over member(s) is accurateŠ


Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates
917 318 8440


From:  Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date:  Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:44 AM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Subject:  Re: W3C says DNT by Default not compliant

 
Alan,

Perhaps you intended to send this to public-tracking, not public-privacy?

-"individual member[] of this group"
 
  

On Monday, June 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
 
>  
> A few thoughts from this piece and the recent CNN article:
> 
> If the current grand compromise is the absolute end point for where the
> privacy leaning folks are willing to go, I think we're going to have a
> difficult time reaching anything that resembles consensus within this group.
> 
> Moreover, I'm growing increasingly concerned by some of the characterizations
> being made by individual members of this group to the press. To be clear - I'm
> not looking to place a gag on anyone. However, if we're going to go the press
> anytime there is a disagreement, it may have a chilling effect on some members
> of this group's ability to provide input. A handful of the larger entities
> within the group have raised similar concerns previously, so I don't think I'm
> the only one who feels this way.
> 
> Its one thing for a reporter to review the public minutes from our discussions
> and reach a conclusion ­ its another for a member of this group to
> characterize the views of others in the group as it opens the door to all
> kinds of mis-interpretation and hearsay. And at the end of the day, it seems
> like this is an unproductive direction...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
> 
> 
> From:  Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com>
> Date:  Monday, June 11, 2012 9:28 AM
> To:  <public-privacy@w3.org>
> Subject:  W3C says DNT by Default not compliant
> Resent-From:  <public-privacy@w3.org>
> Resent-Date:  Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:43:11 +0000
> 
> This is interesting..
> 
> Here is some snippits.  form this article, 'Standards group to bar IE10 from
> claiming 'Do Not Track' compliance'
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227881/Standards_group_to_bar_IE10_fro
> m_claiming_Do_Not_Track_compliance
> 
> Isn't DNT by default an obviously appropriate privacy by design choice?
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Here are some snippits.  *************************
> 
> "On Wednesday, the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) standards organization
> reached a compromise on some aspects of "Do Not Track," the browser feature
> that signals whether a user wants online advertisers and websites to track
> his or her movements.
> 
> The new draft of the standard, which may be months from passing in final
> form, explicitly bars browsers from setting Do Not Track (DNT) on by
> default."
> 
> snip
> 
> "An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a
> user's explicit consent," the draft reads ( download PDF
> http://tinyurl.com/6p5evwt ).
> 
> That seemed squarely aimed at Microsoft.
> 
> "But the W3C group that's been hammering out DNT disagreed, and said flatly
> that while Microsoft is perfectly free to do what it wants, it cannot call
> IE10 DNT compliant if it continues down its on-by-default road."
> 
> snip
> 
> "We don't have agreement on what the ramifications are. Can ad networks
> ignore a tracking request from IE10?" Mayer said. "Google and Yahoo and
> Adobe said they should be able to ignore the header from IE10, but Mozilla
> and Apple have said that ad networks should not ignore it."
> 
> Microsoft was not available for comment on the W3C draft specification that
> would bar it from advertising IE10 as compliant with DNT.
> 
> 
> 
>