- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:55 -0500
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
David - I think its reasonable to ask those looking for exceptions to communicate the essence of the proposed exchange in a way that is accurate and complete. I could not disagree more with your assertion that "browsers cannot 'hide' whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead anyone." There are a number of examples that indicate otherwise... Just curious - how would you characterize this video? It apparently was good enough to win an award from Mozilla, so it seems fair to say that Mozilla thinks its an appropriate depiction of tracking. http://www.seanoriordantv.com/#!FIREFOX/c1xhv On 11/19/12 6:32 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: > >On Nov 18, 2012, at 10:03 , Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> >wrote: > >> I agree -- specifying exact wording isn't a great idea - but that's not >> what I'm suggesting. >> >> Setting the expectation that UA's communicate DNT functionality clearly >> and completely addresses the very real possibility that some UA's will >> characterize DNT functionality in a way that is a) unclear, b) filled >>with >> hyperbole, or those that c) enact DNT without even telling Users. >> >> While I think that public, marketplace and regulatory pressure might >> address c), I tend to doubt that they will address a) and b). >> >> I'm a bit surprised that this is so controversial. After all, the goal >> here is to provide consumer's with informed choice, correct? > >Alan > >I take it, following this thread, that you OK with even stronger language >for sites, when they are getting consent for an exception? Sites have >every incentive to get users to agree, and it's easy to call the API to >log the exception with the UA. In contrast, the browsers cannot 'hide' >whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead >anyone. > > >> >> >> On 11/18/12 12:35 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 15 November 2012 15:46:14 David Singer wrote: >>>>> ©øThe User Agent MUST make available explanatory text to provide more >>>>> detailed information about DNT functionality within easy and direct >>>>> access for the particular environment prior to DNT being enabled.©÷ >>>> and all sites will, of course, be mandated to do the same or better >>>>for >>>> exception requests? >>> >>> <joke> >>> YES! All sides MUST implement P3P to fulfill DNT! After 10 years, the >>> magic >>> bullet to get ubiquituous P3P adoption. >>> </joke> >>> >>> I thought we have always worked under the assumption that we do not >>> proscribe >>> UA GUI. Because my experience is that we can write whatever we want >>>into >>> a >>> Specification, but UAs won' t necessarily honor that. UI is where >>> browsers >>> compete. While some simple, well-tested proscribed text would probably >>> create >>> some kind of a circuit where users better understand and adapt their >>> expectations, I don't see momentum. >>> >>> I rather think that it creates an eco-system where browser that promise >>> too >>> much can be punished by users who are deceived and by sites responding >>> that >>> they won't honor. And we'll see waves into one or the other direction >>> before >>> it stabilizes. >>> >>> Rigo >>> >>> >> >> >> > >David Singer >Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 05:01:31 UTC