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

Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:29:46 -0500
To: Alex Fowler <afowler@mozilla.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCD0EE11.260B3%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Thanks for the response, Alex. Just to clear the record, one of the stated
objectives of the contest was to educate consumers about privacy issues.
(See https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefoxflicks/brief/). My point is that
this video might be more sensationalistic than educational - and that
there's little downside for a UA to err on the side of the former in their
communications with consumers to demonstrate that they are privacy safe.

On 11/20/12 1:17 AM, "Alex Fowler" <afowler@mozilla.com> wrote:

>Against my better judgement, I can't resist the urge to respond, Alan.
>A piece of community contributed video by a filmmaker in Ireland is
>*not* a policy statement by Mozilla nor is it evidence that we're
>engaged in misleading people. The most one can say is this video
>establishes the topic of online tracking resonates with people, as the
>judges for this award were Ed Norton, Shauna Robertson (Meet the
>Parents), Jeffrey Silver (Tron: Legacy) and Ben Silverman (The Office)
>and a group of young filmmakers. See
>https://firefoxflicks.mozilla.org/en-US/judges. The festival rules
>didn't say anything about the topics people should explore and no
>Mozilla employees were involved in selecting finalists/winners.
>On 11/19/12 9:00 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> David - I think its reasonable to ask those looking for exceptions to
>> communicate the essence of the proposed exchange in a way that is
>> and complete. 
>> I could not disagree more with your assertion that "browsers cannot
>> 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
>>> wrote:
>>>> I agree -- specifying exact wording isn't a great idea - but that's
>>>> what I'm suggesting.
>>>> Setting the expectation that UA's communicate DNT functionality
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> too 
>>>>> much can be punished by users who are deceived and by sites
>>>>> 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 13:30:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:00 UTC