Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

If we have a mechanism that allows (and only allows) site wide exceptions,
it's trivial to indicate the presence or absence of such an exception in
the request header.

So, on the first visit to the website, the site would receive an indication
in the header that it does not have a site-wide exception (DNT:1). As such,
rather than serving content, it can decide to serve something to the user
explaining a request for an exception.

On subsequent visits, the site would receive in the header an indication
that it does have a site-wide exception (DNT:0 or some other indication in
the header, exact details less important) and it could thus know all its
third parties are covered and serve content.

If you're calling the JS API on every pageload, you're doing it wrong :)

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Vincent Toubiana <v.toubiana@free.fr> wrote:

>  The issue remains the same for site-wide exceptions: the first party can
> not assume that the user granted the exception the first time he visits the
> website.
>
> I must be missing something here, because I don't see how the first party
> could serve content dependent of the exception status when the call is
> asynchronous.
>
>  The whole point is that the first party might not want to serve content
> independent of the exception status of the third parties.
> On May 7, 2012 6:52 PM, "Vincent Toubiana" <v.toubiana@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>  My response is  inline
>>
>>  The call is asynchronous, I don't think we would want to change that.
>> What you propose seems like it would pause pageload until the user acts on
>> the exception, I don't think you would find much support for making the API
>> synchronous.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow you here. I don't see how this is different than
>> for site-wide exceptions: browser can load the page content but may have to
>> wait before loading content from third parties. If the required exceptions
>> were not granted the browser would leave the page.
>> I'd expect the same behavior for site-wide exceptions.
>>
>>
>>  It also doesn't solve the problem as best I can tell of knowing _at the
>> time you receive the original request_ whether you have all the exceptions
>> you need. By moving this to javascript, you're adding a necessary
>> round-trip back to the server to say "Yup, we have our exceptions, send the
>> content." Please see my earlier emails, it's not just the issue of UI
>> complexity, it's also a site knowing at the time it receives a request
>> whether or not it's covered. This is trivial with * and nontrivial
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>> I believe this would  solve the problem for the first visit to the first
>> party (you're assured to have all the required exceptions).  It may leave
>> the issue open for the next visit but using first party cookies might solve
>> the problem then.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  In that case, the checkbox corresponding to such third party would be
>>> disabled. If a user does not want to grant that exception he can click on
>>> “cancel” to be redirected to another page (i.e. a paywall). Thus a first
>>> party can make sure that all the required third parties are granted an
>>> exception before delivering content.  Once exceptions have been
>>> granted, this should not cause any additional delay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vincent
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/4/2012 6:35 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shane,
>>>>
>>>> lets imagine a site A uses services of P1, P2 and P3. My browser hits
>>>> the
>>>> site A and realizes that it has a web - wide exception DNT;0 for P3. It
>>>> sends DNT;0 in GET requests to P3. This is what You have been pursuing
>>>> since
>>>> quite a while now. Correct me, if the above is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Nick and Tom present a javascript API allowing my browser to discover
>>>> that
>>>> site A is using services P1,P2 and P3. The API would allow the browser
>>>> to
>>>> get an exception from the user for either  P1,P2 or P3.
>>>>
>>>> Ian and You tell me that we can not distinguish between P1,P2 and P3
>>>> because
>>>> it is too burdensome.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  I think you are misunderstanding. The complexity comes from having to
>>> allow a given first party request à la carte third party exceptions on its
>>> first party site. The browser is capable of recognizing that a given third
>>> party has a web-wide exception and sending that third party DNT:0 and
>>> realizing that other third parties do not have a web-wide exception and
>>> sending them DNT:1. That is not the complex part. The complex part is
>>>
>>>  a) having a UI that would allow for this à la carte granting of
>>> exceptions
>>> b) having a management UI that allows users to change their à la carte
>>> selections later
>>> c) a first-party figuring out whether all the third parties it cares
>>> about are covered by an exception.
>>>
>>>  I really don't think that in the common case a first party will care
>>> at all about whether third parties have a web-wide exception. In my mind,
>>> how this would work is that the first party site will care primarily about
>>> revenue generating third parties (e.g. ads) which are not likely to have a
>>> web-wide exception from users...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now let's come back to that cake. Either you can have
>>>> a web-wide exception and distinguish between P1,P2 and P3. In this case
>>>> you
>>>> would also distinguish between P1,P2 and P3 in the javascript API. Or
>>>> you
>>>> can't have a web-wide exception as it is too burdensome to distinguish
>>>> between P1,P2 and P3. In this case, the javascript API will only
>>>> recognize
>>>> "*" as "all the third parties of site A. But it looks surprising to
>>>> defend
>>>> that in one situation the browser can distinguish parties and in the
>>>> other
>>>> it can't. Which brings us back to the cake.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, having "*" as the only possible expression damages the
>>>> consent mechanism. While in the common-law context, rather unclear and
>>>> open
>>>> terms by parties are accepted for "agreements" and while it is accepted
>>>> to
>>>> figure out later what the content of the agreement actually is, this is
>>>> not
>>>> allowed in most other legal systems. This is why all the software bags
>>>> that
>>>> are so nicely decorated with 3point font artwork do not have any legal
>>>> meaning in e.g. french or german law. Because all the nice clauses have
>>>> no
>>>> "object". It has no object because the content of the agreement can't be
>>>> determined at agreement time. Legal spoken, "*" is a blank check to the
>>>> site
>>>> A. The user hitting site A has "*", but no information. Even if -in
>>>> extremis- we would assume a consent, such a consent would not be
>>>> "informed"
>>>> as "*" has a non discoverable meaning. Because only site A knows what
>>>> "*"
>>>> means. The user can't know. And the user can't consent to things she
>>>> doesn't
>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> Consequently, avoiding explicit/explicit gives 3rd parties some
>>>> bundling-
>>>> gains at the edge but introduces a logic break and damages the consent
>>>> mechanism. The latter has IMHO a much higher value than the little
>>>> bundling
>>>> gains as it allows to communicate with the user to get an exception.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rigo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 03 May 2012 13:27:17 Shane Wiley wrote:
>>>> > Rigo,
>>>> >
>>>> > Disagree on granularity.  If I say "the 3rd parties I work with = '*'
>>>> "
>>>> > then it is defined and consent has been reached.
>>>> >
>>>> > - Shane
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
>>>> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:26 PM
>>>> > To: Shane Wiley
>>>> > Cc: Kevin Smith; Matthias Schunter; Jonathan Mayer; ifette@google.com
>>>> ;
>>>> > Nicholas Doty; public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: explicit-explicit
>>>> > exception pairs
>>>> >
>>>> > Shane,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm surprised to hear that from you because in order to get a
>>>> web-wide or
>>>> > even a site-wide exception, you need this granularity anyway. I also
>>>> not
>>>> > that a consent mechanism could not work that way as the object of the
>>>> > consent would be open ended and thus undefined. If you only say * and
>>>> > don't tell what it means, there can't be any consent or agreement.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Rigo
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thursday 03 May 2012 10:44:34 Shane Wiley wrote:
>>>> > > I know we're not supposed to add "+1" but I do want to pile on a bit
>>>> > > here
>>>> > > to support Kevin and Ian in that I can't see the value in
>>>> overloading
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > standard to add such a high-level of complexity to meet a very small
>>>> > > percentage of likely use cases.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > From a web browser vendor perspective, this is going to become
>>>> fairly
>>>> > > complex quickly and will likely deter all but the most advanced
>>>> users
>>>> > > attempting to manage preferences at this level of granularity.
>>>>  Those
>>>> > > very same users are probably savvy enough to simply reset or block
>>>> 3rd
>>>> > > party cookies already -- AND/OR -- go into "Privacy Mode" in their
>>>> > > browser -- AND/OR -- leverage 3rd party tools that already solve
>>>> much
>>>> > > (all?) that is attempting to be solved here.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > From a publisher perspective, attempting to support a static list of
>>>> > > known 3rd parties is going to be significantly difficult to
>>>> impossible.
>>>> > >  And the rate of change will require continuous repermissioning of
>>>> > > users to gain a "user granted exception".  I understand there are a
>>>> > > very small sub-set of publishers that could find value in the
>>>> > > origin/origin approach, but appears this weight comes to bear on
>>>> larger
>>>> > > publishers to some degree -- all depending on how the UA UI is built
>>>> > > (which as we've already discussed is going to be fairly complex).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > - Shane
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>