Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

And there in lies the challenge of defining a user choice.

Microsoft sets the choice of ³Do Not Track²

Everyone else (Apple, Mozilla, Google, Opera, Yahoo) sets the choice to
³Tracking allowed². (In the absence of the user being notified that they can
indeed make a choice the default is to track).

So there you have it, opt-in vs. opt-out. Can you imagine the user now has a
choice. They can download a browser that by default offers more privacy or
they can chose the alternative. The real surprise comes later when they (the
consumer) find out that it¹s all optional for the content provider.


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone


Contact information (Email is fastest)
____________________________________
Email:      peter.cranstone@gmail.com <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Phone:    (00 +1) 720.663.1752


From:  Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date:  Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:30 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, <ifette@google.com>, Shane Wiley
<wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Ninja
Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Bjoern
Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3 Tracking
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
Resent-From:  W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:31:58 +0000

>     
>  Alan -- there are only 2 types of consent potentially operative here. Opt-in
> and opt-out. So I don't think I'm raising some obscure jurisdictional quirk,
> but rather a pervasive feature of data protection laws.
>  
>  My read of the EU situation is not the same as yours but regardless, if the
> EU ends up with an opt-out regime, then addressing facially valid DNT-1
> defaults becomes all the more pressing.
>  
>  Best,
>  Tamir
>  
>  On 6/12/2012 3:13 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> Hi Tamir -
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> I think that's a laudable goal. However, the standard should not be looking
>> to address every possible regulatory issue at the expense of the core mission
>> of the group ­ which is to help define mechanisms for expressing user
>> preferences around Web tracking (as defined). That core mission may fit
>> really well into certain legal frameworks - and fit less well in other
>> frameworks. The uncertainty in certain jurisdictions makes this a difficult
>> proposition to say the least. I've heard respected EU privacy experts state
>> that ­ of the member states that have taken a public position on Section 5(3)
>> of ePrivacy ­ half appear to be opt-in and half appear to be opt­out for most
>> cookies.  And the UK has arguably changed its stance on the cookie issue
>> several times since our group began its work ­ and for a time had one branch
>> of government saying something vastly different from another branch.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> I recognize that some in the group may be more optimistic regarding the time
>> it would take to harmonize this standard across multiple jurisdictions. If
>> that's the consensus of the group, so be it. If so, we may want to more
>> clearly state this in the group's charter.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Alan Chapell
>>  
>> Chapell & Associates
>>  
>> 917 318 8440
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>   
>> From:  Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
>>  Date:  Monday, June 11, 2012 8:13 PM
>>  To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
>>  Cc:  Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, <ifette@google.com>, Shane Wiley
>> <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Ninja
>> Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Bjoern
>> Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>,
>> "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
>>  Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  Hi Alan,
>>  
>>  Would it not be in the interests of all if this standard were able to take
>> into account as many regulatory problems for online trackers as possible?
>>  
>>  Best,
>>  Tamir
>>  
>>  On 6/11/2012 11:41 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>>> It seems to me that the group is spending a fair amount of time focusing on
>>> how DNT will provide a panacea to the legal uncertainty in the EU and now
>>> Canada. I'm not sure its a productive road for this group to be going down.
>>> DNT is unlikely to be the sole path to compliance in either the EU or
>>> Canada.
>>  
>>  
>>   
>