RE: Identity providers as first parties

Jonathan,

Continue to disagree (on many levels).  Could you please name those in the online advertising industry that are supportive of the proposal you shared with the WG?

Thank you,
- Shane

From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Tamir Israel; Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane,

You and Roy have been vocal in your objections to the EFF/Mozilla/Stanford compromise proposal. I'm disappointed, though given your inflexibility throughout this process, entirely unsurprised.

That said, you do not speak for the online advertising industry. Many companies have been more willing to countenance constructive compromise. Your conclusion that advertising industry participants have "mostly rejected" the proposal is inaccurate.

Jonathan

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Tamir,

Jonathan's proposal does attempt to address this point but many in the room feel this should be left to local law. Justin Brookman and I took a pass at this language but it shifted to becoming overly prescriptive (legislating via tech standard) so many in the WG asked for local law to determine.

I would suggest this conversation be extracted from Jonathan's proposal to be handled separately as the rest of proposal has been mostly rejected by those in the WG that are intended to implement DNT in the real-world (on the 1st party/3rd party side).

More to come in Seattle...

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:19 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane -- I am not remotely attempting doing so.

As far back as I can see, the spec was going to put conditions on the
means by which out of band consent can be sought.

Jonathan et al's proposal is:

1. Actual presentation: The choice mechanism MUST be actually presented
to the user. It MUST NOT be on a linked page, such as a terms of service
or privacy policy.
2. Clear terms: The choice mechanism MUST use clear, non-confusing
terminology.
3. Independent choice: The choice mechanism MUST be presented
independent of other choices. It MUST NOT be bundled with other user
preferences.
4. No default permission: The choice mechanism MUST NOT have the user
permission preference selected by default.

On 6/17/2012 3:16 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Tamir,

That's up to local laws to determine. Please do not attempt to legislate via W3C tech standard.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:14 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane -- Out of band consent *does* trump DNT-1. We are now trying to
define the parameters by which out of band consent can be sought.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/17/2012 3:11 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Tamir,

Out-of-band consent trumps DNT. We've been repeating this mantra for over a year now - becoming repetitive.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:23 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane --

Just so we're really clear: if a user authenticates with Yahoo! on site
A and controls preferences on that site, does the out of band consent
dialogue Jonathan showed invalidate DNT-1: on site A? in general?

Best,
Tamir

On 6/15/2012 11:29 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
Ok.

On 6/15/2012 2:07 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
DAA Opt-out and single-sign on are not related. There are some
implementations where the ID is needed beyond the authentication
event and therefore data collection occurs outside of the initial
authentication event. Users do NOT need to choose Yahoo! as their ID
provider if they feel uncomfortable with that outcome.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:56 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane,

Maybe we are getting sidetracked.

Can you please explain the scope of tracking that results from using
Yahoo!'s IdM mechanism? Does it mean you can track all my activities on
the specific authenticated site? If so does this carry across multiple
explicitly authenticated sites? Does it operate in a manner analogous to
single sign-on? How does it interact with the existing DAA opt-out?

Thanks and best regards,
Tamir

On 6/15/2012 11:28 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Tamir,

Any service gets to determine its own primary purpose - so if OBA is
the payment for the service and this is disclosed as a primary
purpose, then that's the bargain the users can choose to consent to
or not.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:21 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane --

There are 2 questions here. One is whether you can bundle in the
obligation to consent to secondary purposes as a condition of
authentication in an IdM context. The primary service in an IdM context
is authentication, not OBA.

The second is to what extent the DNT spec should address this. I took
the 'independent choice' out of band consent criteria as an attempt to
prevent bundling of choices.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/15/2012 11:06 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Tamir,

But in the use case we're discussing the service being provided is
the primary purpose - a user's online identity. A service
determines its primary purpose, discloses this to the user, user
consents. Case closed.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:02 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane, I disagree. Under PIPEDA you should offer users the possibility
of opting out of collection, use or disclosure for purposes
secondary to
the primary service being offered.

This is the basis of the opt-out consent scheme being applied to
online
tracking.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/15/2012 10:58 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Tamir,

I disagree and PIPEDA does as well. As long as you're clear to a
user what a service provides and a user expressly consents to
those practices, the discussion is over.

Please don't try to raise CA regulatory schemes into conversations
on one hand then completely reverse your stance at whim - this
seriously undermines your credibility.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
Zorbas; ifette@google.com; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane --

The need for independent choice is critical, I think, to the out
of band
consent scheme. You shouldn't be able to force users out of their DNT
choices as a condition of authentication.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/15/2012 10:48 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Rigo,

DNT will NEVER trump an out-of-band consent. The user would
simply withdraw from using the service they had provided prior
consent to. If the product would like to offer two levels of
service, it can of course do that, but that would be completely
outside the scope of DNT.

DNT is not the privacy silver bullet and answer to all privacy
issues on the Internet - let's stop trying to push it in that
direction.

Thank you,
- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:28 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Shane Wiley; rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas; ifette@google.com;
Tamir Israel; JC Cannon (Microsoft)
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

Shane, Kimon,

On Thursday 14 June 2012 16:47:03 Shane Wiley wrote:
I’ve used a few others and they appears to do the same so I’m
confused as to what real-world identity provider scenario someone
is considering where consent wasn’t already obtained?
I confirm that we agreed that the out-of-band agreement will trump
the DNT:1 signal. We also agreed that the service has to signal this
to the client.

I guess, what Rob is trying to achieve is to say, even in this
context, a service could offer the choice of stopping to track and
only use information for the login/authentication purpose. This
could be the meaning of DNT:1 if the Service sends ACK in a
login/authentication context. If you're looking for medical
information in a login context, you don't want your login provider
to spawn that to your insurance. I think this is a very legitimate
use case. The service could say: "yes, I see your point" and send
ACK instead of "out-of-band".

We are just defining switches. People will decide whether they
switch stuff on or off or provide a switch at all.

Rigo