- 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>
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 >>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 13:30:20 UTC