Re: Identity providers as first parties

Peter, please don't forget Europe and our definitions.

Kind regards,
Kimon

Kimon Zorbas
Vice President IAB Europe

IAB Europe - The Egg –Rue Barastraat 175 –1070 Brussels - Belgium
Phone +32 (0)2 5265 568
Mob +32 494 34 91 68
Fax +32 2 526 55 60
vp@iabeurope.eu
Twitter: @kimon_zorbas

www.iabeurope.eu and www.interactcongress.eu

IAB Europe supports the .eu domain name www.eurid.eu

IAB Europe is supported by:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom representing their 5.000 members. The IAB network represents over 90% of European digital revenues and is acting as voice for the industry at National and European level.

IAB Europe is powered by:

Adconion Media Group, Adobe, ADTECH, Alcatel-Lucent, AOL Advertising Europe, AudienceScience, BBC Advertising, CNN, CoAdvertise, comScore Europe, CPX Interactive, Criteo, eBay International Advertising, Expedia Inc, Fox Interactive Media, Gemius, Goldbach Media Group, Google, GroupM, Hi-Media, Koan, Microsoft Europe, Millward Brown, News Corporation, nugg.ad, Nielsen Online, OMD, Orange Advertising Network, PHD, Prisa, Publicitas Europe, Quisma, Sanoma Digital, Selligent, TradeDoubler, Triton Digital, United Internet Media, ValueClick, Verisign, Viacom International Media Networks, Webtrekk, White & Case, Yahoo! and zanox.

IAB Europe is associated with:
Advance International Media, Banner, Emediate, NextPerformance, Right Media, Tribal Fusion and Turn Europe

----- Reply message -----
From: "Peter Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
To: "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Cc: "Alan Chapell" <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "Jonathan Mayer" <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "Mike Zaneis (IAB US)" <mike@iab.net>, "Shane Wiley (yahoo)" <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>, "JC Cannon (Microsoft)" <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Subject: Identity providers as first parties
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 6:49 pm



It seems awfully late to be discussing what constitutes a common objective.

How about we define and agree on a definition of privacy? With that out of the way the objective will hopefully become a lot easier. What about starting with the CDT definition? Anything wrong with that?


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>
Reply-To: <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net<mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca<mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca>>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, "rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>, Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, "JC Cannon (Microsoft)" <jccannon@microsoft.com<mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com>>
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties
Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:44:52 +0000

Jeff,

I think we all want to see a spec come out that is meaningful and can see broad adoption by websites while providing a meaningful benefit to consumers over the current status-quo. That said, I don't appreciate being misrepresented to press. On that call we were discussing defaults, IE10, and choice. What I expressed on that call was that, as we have agreed since the beginning in this WG, DNT is a voluntary mechanism that we are hoping people will opt-in to. Sites have an option as to whether or not they will support DNT, and whether they will support it uniformly for all requests or, for instance, decline the request from user agents known to set it by default, and ideally have some mechanism in the spec to provide notice to that effect to the user.

That's a far cry from saying "we will be able to do whatever [we] want anyways."

As to your last point, I continue to feel that the biggest obstacle this working group faces is that we still have not yet agreed on a common purpose that we are working towards. We came to the table intending to provide a mechanism through the browser with which users could opt-out of receiving online behavioural advertisements. Others came to the table with the aim of solving the Article 29 "opt-in" issues. Others still have come to the table with the objective of stopping all data collection by "third parties". Until we can agree on a common objective for this WG, I fear we may continue to operate in a less-than-optimal manner.

-Ian

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>> wrote:
I hadn't seen this.  But I think Jonathan was correct in his characterization.  Many privacy advocates hope that Google will provide greater leadership to adopt meaningful DNT standard.    We are waiting to see its plans to ensure the spec protects privacy.

Jeff



On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:

Jeff,

With respect,


"It's not clear to what extent we'll get an agreement on this," Mayer told CNNMoney. "One of Google's representatives said on the call that the company will be able to do whatever it wants anyways. I'm stunned at how transparent some of these companies were -- they just want to minimize the number of Do Not Track users, period."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/07/technology/do-not-track/index.htm


That type of behaviour is not something one would expect from someone who bills themselves as being a "tough-but-fair negotiator."

-Ian

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>> wrote:
Ian:  I suggest that what reporters are doing is merely reading the texts posted.  That what's been written says a great deal about both personal views and--one assumes--the position taken by the CEO and board on DNT and the spec.  There hasn't been anything taken out of context I know about.    See you soon.

Jeff



On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:

Jeff,

That's precisely the problem. Certain people from this working group seem to have no problem taking statements made on calls and feeding warped versions of those statements to reporters; such tactics do not typically go far when one is trying to be a "negotiator" to reach a "grand compromise". (Also, most "negotiators" whom I have seen be successful in the past, hostage negotiators excepted, have been neutral uninterested third parties, not someone with a clear axe to grind.)

-Ian

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>> wrote:
Alan:  I find your language and tone troubling.  I hope you know that many people are looking at this thread.  Our communications say a great deal about ourselves, inc to the EU, FTC and media watching this thread closely.  Maybe even Fox News!

Jeff



On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

I have no issue with your personality. My issue is with your tactics. Assuming you can cease utilizing tactics that seem unproductive at best, then I think you will see fewer emails directed at you; criticizing those tactics.

This will be my last note on this matter – I'm hopeful and optimistic that we can move forward productively from here….


Alan


From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net<mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca<mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca>>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, "rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>, Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, "ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>" <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>, "JC Cannon (Microsoft)" <jccannon@microsoft.com<mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com>>
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties

This thread has devolved into a Fox News-esque referendum on my personality. It's both a distraction and ineffectual—those who have collaborated with me over the past year know I'm a tireless, tough-but-fair negotiator.

Enough. Back to substance.

Jonathan

On Monday, June 18, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Jeffrey Chester wrote:

Jonathan has played an extraordinary productive role, with insights, urging compromise (when people like  me looked with dismay about the lack of progress in achieving real privacy safeguards so far), and leadership.  As I have explained to officials, we have not yet seen serious compromise from industry to ensure DNT is a spec that protects privacy.  Jonathan wants us to all do better, as do I.   We all know--or should--that what we are doing is being closely watched on both sides of the Atlantic by the press and policymakers.  It would be a serious loss if we don't make progress in Seattle.

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
Washington DC
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
Jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:Jeff@democraticmedia.org>

On Jun 18, 2012, at 5:19 AM, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>> wrote:

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<tel:917%20318%208440>


From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 2:06 AM
To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net<mailto:mike@iab.net>>
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca<mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca>>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, "rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>, Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu<mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, "ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>" <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>, "JC Cannon (Microsoft)" <jccannon@microsoft.com<mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com>>
Subject: Re: Identity providers as first parties
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<tel:%28202%29%20253-1466>

On Jun 17, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "Jonathan Mayer" <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon
Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon
Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon
Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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:public-tracking@w3.org>; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon
Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: Shane Wiley; <mailto:rob@blaeu.com> rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>; Kimon Zorbas; <mailto:ifette@google.com> ifette@google.com<mailto: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