Re: Identity providers as first parties

Jonathan,

Taking you at your word that your goal is to attain consensus, I would
humbly suggest that the tactics you are using ­ particularly over the past
several weeks ­ seem at odds with that goal. I'm hopeful that your latest
email is an indication that we'll see more compromise and fewer juvenile
barbs when we arrive in Bellevue.

And for the record, as someone from industry ­ I strongly favor the proposal
proffered by Shane et al.

Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates
917 318 8440


From:  Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date:  Monday, June 18, 2012 2:06 AM
To:  Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Cc:  Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>,
Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org"
<public-tracking@w3.org>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>, Kimon Zorbas
<vp@iabeurope.eu>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "JC Cannon
(Microsoft)" <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Subject:  Re: Identity providers as first parties
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:07:15 +0000

 
Shane and Mike,

As the Bellevue meeting approaches, this group's sole focus must be
attaining consensus on a moderate compromise.  I'm doing everything I can to
facilitate that goal.  I have neither the time nor patience to swap puerile
barbs for cheap political points.  There's far too much at stake.

Jonathan
 
  

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:
 
>  
> Jonathan,
> 
> Can you please elaborate on these very serious claims you have made in back to
> back posts?  First, you attack two of the most engaged, productive members of
> the working group (Shane and Roy who are both editors) and claim they do not
> speak for the online advertising industry, yet you did not point to any
> companies or public statements of support for your position. As someone who
> DOES speak for the industry, I know that Shane and Roy raise issues that THE
> industry shares. Please provide substantiation for your claims.
> 
> As for the unfair competition claims, that is laughable. The only legal claim
> we should be discussing is one of liable for such ridiculous statements.
> 
> Mike Zaneis 
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
> 
> On Jun 17, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "Jonathan Mayer" <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Shane, 
>> 
>> As I explained in my initial note:
>>> We have received valuable feedback from a number of participant viewpoints,
>>> including browser vendors, advertising companies, analytics services, social
>>> networks, policymakers, consumer groups, and researchers.  Out of respect
>>> for the candid nature of those ongoing conversations, we leave it to
>>> stakeholders to volunteer their contributions to and views on this proposal.
>> I would add that more than one advertising company expressed concern about
>> possible retaliation if they broke away from the industry trade groups.  I'll
>> leave it to regulators to decide if the industry's practices constitute
>> unfair competition.
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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>
>>> mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:42 PM
>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>> Cc: Tamir Israel; Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>> public-tracking@w3.org;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas;
>>> <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:19 PM
>>>> 
>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>> 
>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> public-tracking@w3.org;
>>>> <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas;
>>>> <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:14 PM
>>>>> 
>>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> public-tracking@w3.org;
>>>>> <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas;
>>>>> <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:23 PM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>>>> public-tracking@w3.org;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
>>>>>> Zorbas;  <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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>
>>>>>>> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:56 AM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>>>>> public-tracking@w3.org;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Zorbas;  <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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>
>>>>>>> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:21 AM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>>>>> public-tracking@w3.org;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Zorbas;  <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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>
>>>>>>> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:02 AM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>>>>> public-tracking@w3.org;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Zorbas;  <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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>
>>>>>>> mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 7:54 AM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cc: Rigo Wenning;  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>>>>> public-tracking@w3.org;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Zorbas;  <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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> mailto:rigo@w3.org]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:28 AM
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To:  <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> public-tracking@w3.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cc: Shane Wiley;  <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com; Kimon Zorbas;
>>>>>>> <mailto:ifette@google.com> 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:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I¹ve used a few others and they appears to do the same so I¹m
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> confused as to what real-world identity provider scenario someone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> is considering where consent wasn¹t 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
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>