- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:52:03 -0700
- To: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
- Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "publ >> \"public-tracking@w3.org\"" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
I think we could rat-hole badly on trying to decide every case of whether a tool is intended expressly to provide privacy, or is general-purpose. I think we should just write as clear a rule as we can, and walk away, and let public opinion, criticism, action on the part of servers, etc., clarify for us. On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:42 , Lee Tien wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > I don't think we reached agreement on antivirus, at least according to Aleecia's summary: > >> Implication B: AVG, as an anti-virus package and much more, may or may not count as a users' expression of privacy. We are still discussing this which leads to... >> >> (2) Today we did not agree what threshold "counts" for a user expressing a privacy preference while selecting a user agent. We heard a variety of views and thresholds proposed. The conversation ended with: >> Action item on Ian to write text with his proposal (action-212) >> Action item on Justin to write text with his proposal (action-211) > > thanks, > Lee > > On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Matthias Schunter wrote: > >> Hi Rigo, >> >> >> after being underwater while changing jobs, I finally read the current spec. >> >> I have finally read the spec and I believe that >> a) Our agreement (ISSUE-4) is correctly reflected in the spec albeit >> the current language could benefit >> from further editorial improvements to enhance clarity. >> b) That the well-known URI / response headers need discussion and >> improvements and that this discussion is not yet over. >> Roy had the mission to merge response headers into his proposal >> (what he did) and the result needs more polishing. >> >> Since I believe that we all agree that a default can be an expression of >> preference (e.g., if I install a privacy-enhanced browser that is >> permitted to ship with DNT;1 as default), feel free to indicate text >> updates to clarify the text to fully communicate this agreement. We also >> agreed that installing general-purpose tools (browser, OS, antivirus, >> ...) is not such a declaration of prefefence and thus those tools must >> not ship with DNT on (e.g., DNT;1). However, they may enable DNT by >> asking their user during installation. >> >> >> Regards, >> matthias >> >> >> On 04/06/2012 11:34, Rigo Wenning wrote: >>> Your edits do NOT reflect the text in Aleecia's mail you claim to implement. >>> I object to those edits. >>> >>> Rigo >>> >>> On Monday 04 June 2012 01:37:07 Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>>> I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current >>>>> TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol >>>>> requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries. >>>>> I intend to fix that as an editorial concern. Please feel free >>>>> to send suggested text to the mailing list. >>>> I have added text based on Aleecia's original proposal that was >>>> reviewed in Santa Clara (IIRC), slightly modified to reflect the >>>> three alternatives (unset, on, off) we agreed upon and to fit >>>> within the determining/expressing/multiple-mechanisms order of >>>> the current spec. >>>> >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2012Jun/0000.ht >>>> ml >>>> >>>> ....Roy >> >> >> > > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 17:52:49 UTC