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

Mike, 

I think the position still holds. I heard a very large support for 
having the DNT signal "an expression of the user's preference". 

The only thing we are bickering about IMHO, is how to react on tools 
(a certain browser will not remain the only one) that just spawn 
headers. And this reaction is a challenge to design IMHO. Shane 
wants to be up-front-dirt-simple saying: "I know your UA did not do 
the right thing, so I reject this UA entirely". Others like me want 
a different reaction. Others said: "If we allow evilAD to claim full 
DNT-compliance and reject all the expressions, we haven't gained 
anything". Understandably. 

And we are operating in this difficult matrix. So I challenge us all 
to come up with other solutions to DNT:1 spitting simple-tools than 
"I don't like your UA". Because I have experienced too often that 
UAs are rejected by sites where they should just implement a 
standard (not meaning you must accept DNT:1 always here). Browser 
sniffing is evil and the current suggestion is neither technically 
nor socially satisfactory. So let's bicker a bit more to find the 
right solution. We will. 

Rigo

On Thursday 14 June 2012 03:25:34 Mike Zaneis wrote:
> Strange subject given the fact that this working group, advocates
> and industry alike, agreed in Boston last September that browser
> flags were not to be turned on by default. This collective
> decision as memorialized in an open and immediately closed issue
> a couple of weeks following that meeting. This fact is not up for
> debate.
> 
> If people would now like to reverse their positions then they are
> free to do so and ask to open a new issue on the subject. No
> problem there, but let's not play games and act like we did not
> agree to one position at the very outset of the working group.
> 
> Can we please get some guidance from the W3C staff or Co-chairs on
> the proper procedure here so we can all be spared the selective
> amnesia from certain parties?
> 
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
> 
> On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:17 PM, "Jonathan Mayer"
> <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Shane,
> 
> The online advertising industry participants in the working group
> have not spoken with one voice on the issue of browser defaults. 
> AdTruth and Microsoft appear willing to honor Do Not Track by
> default.  Representatives from Adobe, Google, and Yahoo have
> indicated that they'd prefer not to.  It certainly would be
> helpful to hear the perspectives of other working group members
> who operate advertising businesses.
> 
> Best,
> Jonathan
> 
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the one ad targeting company that relies on
> digital fingerprinting and desperately needs DNT to provide some
> level of user control over their current business practices? 
> There may be a few outliers but please understand they represent
> less than 1% of traffic on the Internet.  If that’s your goal, so
> be it.
> 
> 
> 
> - Shane
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jonathan Mayer
> [<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu] Sent:
> Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:11 PM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: Rigo Wenning; <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
> public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Roy T.
> Fielding; Tamir Israel Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user
> agent compliance
> 
> 
> 
> Shane,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a standard no one in industry
> will implement."  Earlier today a working group member from an ad
> targeting company suggested they would implement the W3C Do Not
> Track standard if it included honoring Internet Explorer's
> default implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> We already are by discussing elements of a standard no one in
> industry will implement. You're taking us down that road again...
> 
> 
> 
> - Shane
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: Rigo Wenning [<mailto:rigo@w3.org>mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:59 PM
> 
> To: <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
> public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
> 
> Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Tamir Israel
> 
> Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 12 June 2012 16:30:21 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> DNT is not the only consent mechanism. Right now it doesn't
> 
> even qualify as one. Inside the tracking status resource you
> 
> will see a link to a control resource. That resource is a
> 
> consent mechanism. It doesn't depend on DNT. It doesn't
> 
> disappear even if the DNT field is ignored. And that's just
> 
> one of many possible consent mechanisms other than DNT that
> 
> a site might use in order to comply with regional laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You could implement P3P that had already that opt-out URI 10 years
> 
> ago... Roy, are you suggesting we repeat history?
> 
> 
> 
> Rigo

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 07:31:49 UTC