W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2012

RE: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141

From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:16:50 +0000
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <DB4282D9ADFE2A4EA9D1C0FB54BC3BD76E5231AF@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> Imagine you have kids and you have a relation to site medical.example.com...


The scenario you describe is something can be easily be handled by Private browsing modes. Using this scenarios pulls first-party sites back into the discussion and I thought we all agreed that DNT would apply to third-party interactions.

On the other point I feel we will continue to disagree.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:24 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: JC Cannon; Shane Wiley
Subject: Re: ISSUE-115: was ACTION-141


On Monday 05 March 2012 21:03:36 JC Cannon wrote:
> <Rigo>Next issue is permission control over time. If a user has set 
> DNT=0
> Rigo I really see this the other way. I would turn on DNT:1 to protect 
> me from sites with which I do not have a relationship. If I want to 
> disable a specific site from tracking me based on a setting at that 
> site I would change the setting or logoff from the site. This is the 
> same way that Private Browsing works. It doesn't prevent sites from 
> identifying you if you log into the sight.

I see your point. We are having a really nasty conflict of rules here. But Shane repeats every other email that we shouldn't address the bad guys. If I'm concerned about a bad/unknown thing, I use tor and blocking tools. I believe there are use cases where you have a relation to a site, but want to keep information out of your profile. And I think this granularity is really needed and people are smart enough to use it. They do so now by selectively blocking stuff at a large scale. And that's the alternative, if we fail here. People will block it.
> I actually find your scenario a bit vague as well.  You say "surfing" 
> as if it is across multiple sites. Generally users don't set 
> permissions at many sites where they may be browsing. If this is still 
> something you want to pursue, can you provide a more concrete scenario 
> where research sites are given permission to create profiles of the 
> user such that they can ignore DNT?

Imagine you have kids and you have a relation to site medical.example.com to have the latest tips and tricks on growing pain. medical.example.com is a very nice site that has all sorts of medical information. You know they have a relation to pharmas and insurances and you already received some targeted advertisement on teething problems. Now you yourself have a serious medical condition and you want to explore that. But this time you don't want them to know its you and to watch you while browsing the site. medical.example.org are very reasonable people. They know that sometimes their viewers don't want to be seen to look at information. So they have implemented a second regime where the site doesn't remember preferences but also doesn't remember any interaction. 

DNT is your tool to flip between those states. The alternative is heavy blocking and tor. 

Just as a matter of scientific argumentation: In PrimeLife, I created the 
assumption that a user has a certain territory where she lives online. The 
browser will bother you with questions when being new in your territory. Over 
time the browser will learn my preferences. The browser will bother me less 
and less and finally only bark for things that I really care for. So I'm a fan 
of site specific preferences. And those preferences (user control) may change 
over time. But this shouldn't influence our discussion. 
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 15:18:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:46 UTC