Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

I think that these developments - and the resulting surprise from many -
make it pretty clear that we should take some time and outline what we
expect of user agents. I definitely think we should add a section for that.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>wrote:

> Some very quick points:
>
> - Until we have a published recommendation, there is nothing to comply
> with.
> - I see this as a reason to push for a recommendation sooner rather than
> later: this is the sort of thing that happens in the days before a
> recommendation, with companies interpreting and implementing as they like
> on all sides.
>
> I've had calmer days, how about all of you?
>
> On the call yesterday I suggested we add a new section on what user agents
> either must or should do to be in compliance with the spec. As written,
> there are currently no requirements on browsers. This seems like an area
> for further discussion. If a user agent claims to be compliant and is not,
> they have the FTC to answer to in the US. If a user agent is not compliant,
> they have press questions to answer. This is what I had in mind when we
> started the conversation yesterday.
>
> Of note: I did not know about MSFT's upcoming announcement prior to the
> call yesterday.
>
> Aleecia
>
> On May 31, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>
> This is an invalid use case as the draft compliance document already
> states a user must actively turn on DNT and this cannot be turned on by
> default.  IE10 is already out of DNT compliance.****
> ** **
> - Shane****
> ** **
>  *From:* Lauren Gelman [mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:21 PM
> *To:* ifette@google.com
> *Cc:* Shane Wiley; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user
> agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]****
> ** **
> ** **
> I just saw this, so in fairness I am revisiting Shane's question: ****
> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2012/May12/05-31Windows8RPPR.aspx
> ****
> ** **
> If a browser ships DNT:0 by default and a user turns it to DNT:1, then
> "informed, explicit" consent is needed for a publisher to cookie the user.
> ****
> ** **
> If a browser ships DNT:1 by default, and a user turns it to DNT:0 then
> "informed, explicit" consent would be needed for a publisher to not collect
> cookies from the user.****
> ** **
> So it still seems to be a matter of requiring heightened awareness based
> on a PROCESS-- when someone who has changed their default setting is asked
> to override that default and not SUBSTANCE-- whether the change is turning
> on or off DNT.****
> ** **
> Lauren Gelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512****
> ** **
> On May 30, 2012, at 9:31 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:****
>
>
> ****
>
> It's also to note that over time, things have tended to shift, e.g. some
> browsers are now blocking third party cookies by default...****
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
> wrote:****
> ** **
> Of course-- but realistically, majority default DNT is not the world this
> standard will exist in.  DNT is going to be a 10% solution.****
> ** **
> Frankly, having done privacy for almost 20 years, the idea that millions
> of users are going to turn on any privacy setting such that they
> unknowingly stop sharing their data in a way that actually has any impact
> on any businesses bottom line is unrealistic at best.  (Can anyone point to
> any internet business, ever, where this has happened??) I've heard of spam,
> spyware, fishing, spear fishing, etc.  I've never heard of a massive
> pro-privacy viral campaign that worked.   There's lots of $ behind
> companies trying to get users to turn off DNT and no $ to try to get them
> to turn it on, so I think this is really orthogonal to what this group is
> working on.****
> ** **
> Lauren Gelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512****
> ** **
> On May 30, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:****
>
>
> ****
> I think the desire though is that DNT is a representation of a user's
> explicit preference. If a browser set it by default, for instance, would a
> site be obligated to respect it?****
> ** **
>
> -Ian****
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
> wrote:****
> ** **
> I don't see the parity here. One is a user's affirmative action being
> overruled by another entity.  The other is the user opting to change a
> default setting.   ****
> ** **
> Lauren Gelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512****
> ** **
> On May 30, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:****
>
>
> ****
> Justin,****
>  ****
> If companies are expected to achieve “informed and explicit” consent to
> turn off DNT, then it is only fair that User Agents also achieve “informed
> and explicit” consent to turn on DNT.  Do you disagree?****
>  ****
> - Shane****
>  ****
>  *From:* Justin Brookman [mailto:justin@cdt.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:17 PM
> *To:* public-tracking@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user
> agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]****
>  ****
>
> What problem?  You honor the header by doing what the spec says.  There is
> no need for you to try to discern user intent, and indeed, no way for you
> to do so.  Ad networks cannot be and are not expected to be responsible for
> every UI or every possible bit of misinformation someone saw in a comment
> thread on Reddit to get them to turn on DNT in the first place.
>
> Today, if someone sets their browser to block third-party cookies, you
> don't try to circumvent that on the theory that someone maybe didn't
> understand what cookies did in the first place.  Nor do we dictate to the
> user agents how and when to surface and describe those capabilities.
>
> If there are conflicting headers, that's a different issue, and Ian and
> Jonathan are putting together draft text on that issue.****
>
>
> Justin Brookman****
>
> Director, Consumer Privacy****
>
>
> Center for Democracy & Technology****
>
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100****
>
> Washington, DC 20006****
>
>
> tel 202.407.8812****
>
>
> fax 202.637.0969****
>
> justin@cdt.org****
>
> http://www.cdt.org****
>
>
> @CenDemTech****
>
> @JustinBrookman****
>
>
> On 5/30/2012 3:34 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:****
> I believe new Issue-150 is closely related to open Issue-143. If the
> user's intent in turning on/off DNT is not clear (especially in cases where
> the user doesn't even know they are specifically sending a DNT:1 header),
> there is no way for publishers to understand how to accurately "honor" any
> consumer's DNT header flag― *it's a fundamental flaw with this scope of
> this proceeding*.  I laid out the concern in some detail in my previous
> email to the group ("In Support of Issue-143"); so I'll just give the brief
> version here: if publishers do not understand the context of the user's DNT
> expression (was the user properly informed about what setting does/means,
> before it was set) how are publishers to determine what the user actually
> intended, or if they user is even aware that a DNT flag is being sent?  If
> any question/statement in any UI can lead to the sending of DNT:1 or DNT:0,
> where is the integrity of the system/solution?  ****
>  ****
> To give just one example (there are many) of how a DNT mechanism that
> lacks a uniform informed consent requirement might be abused, consider the
> theoretical yet plausible scenario where an email is sent to (millions of)
> users informing the users that they should "*click here to prevent evil
> doers from knowing who you are*" or even worse, "*click here if you think
> blue is a pretty color*" (replace with a variety of malware tactics), the
> user's click leading to a programatic setting of DNT, without the user's
> informed consent under uniform compliance rules.  When that happens (some
> zealot decides to abuse the system), I'm sure we'll eventually learn about
> it, after some amount of damage being done. ****
>  ****
> *When it becomes known that users were deceived into sending a DNT
> expression (no uniform informed consent), here's what the end-game of
> publishers might be: * without a way of discerning how DNT was set (which
> program; who owns the program; being able to inspect the program), and
> under which auspices it was set (what did the user agree to when they
> clicked?), when learning of a set of users who were deceived into setting
> DNT, publishers may be forced to consider if they should honor any DNT
> header requests at all, in an effort to protect the web experience of all
> users.  Under this scenario, publishers may be compelled to issue public
> statements outlining the fatal flaws of this W3C DNT mechanism, citing the
> specific abuses, and walking away from compliance on the grounds that being
> "compliant" with such a system would be harmful to the majority of its
> users.****
>  ****
> Is that really the result that this working group is looking for?  If not,
> I strongly suggest that we all get on board with defining a system where
> the actual intent of the user is absolutely clear― the only way I can think
> to accomplish this is to require compliance with a uniform requirement to
> properly educate/inform the user about their choice, at the point user
> choice is made.  Of course I'm open to hearing other suggestions for
> solving this problem, but I feel that "*it's out of scope/Charter for
> this project*" is not an acceptable solution― that answer does not solve
> the problem described here and in open Issue-143.  Please, let's solve the
> actual problem.****
>  ****
> Chris Mejia, IAB/DAA****
>  ****
>  ****
> On 5/30/12 1:35 PM, "Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker" <
> sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:****
>  ****
>
> tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking
> Definitions and Compliance]****
>  ****
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/150****
>  ****
> Raised by: Aleecia McDonald****
> On product: Tracking Definitions and Compliance****
>  ****
> Due to multiple addons that support Do Not Track, there could be
> conflicts. For example, a user could turn off DNT (not unset, actually off,
> sending DNT:0) in Firefox, yet install Abine's "Do Not Track Plus" addon
> (which sends DNT:1). More fun, users could have three different addons,
> each with a different value. Do we have either best practices or
> requirements for user agents here?****
>  ****
> Created from original issue-148, with actions taken by ifette and jmayer
> to write proposals.****
>  ****
>  ****
>  ****
>  ****
>
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
>
>
>


-- 

Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381