- From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:52:10 +0000
- To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU002-W229C29BC5DBE21D8FF7A7FAA8B0@phx.gbl>
Dear David,
The selection and operation of the UA is often a choice of the user.
Even if the proposal attempted to place requirements on the UA UI it would be impossible to enforce without invading user privacy because their choice of UA and UI is a private matter.
You could try to examine the User-Agent header, but if you start using this to discriminate against users based on a lack of compliance then the user can just spoof this header.
You could try to use a JS API to probe the user agent, but users may rightfully consider this an invasion of their privacy and block it.
Even if a UA did honestly communicate the User-Agent header, if you try and dictate the UI then the UA can just add a meta option to allow the user to switch between your desired UI and their preferred UI.
You just don't control the UA so the Chair probably made the correct call.
If you want to give users more choice then publish your own UA or extension that does what you want and pitch it to users - and let the market sort out the matter. Perhaps you could work on making the DNT UI customizable via extensions so it would be easy to give users choice? Some browser developers may be sympathetic to such a proposal, especially if you could help fund the work.
I dispute the goal of making all options equally accessible. The options have very different safety levels for users and it is only common sense that a device should default to the safe option.
Use case: Parents may well want to lock off an option panel that allows children to change browser safety settings.
If you feel there is an abuse of market share then you have my sympathy and support for offering users choice of UA and UI, but attempting to dictate the UA UI design via this forum is probably not going to help you because it is probably not possible for this forum to dictate the UA UI.
cheers
Fred
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:21:11 -0400
From: david@networkadvertising.org
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Formal Objection to the Decision Regarding A “Tri-part choice requirement for users agents.”
Dear Director, TPWG Chairs, and all participants in the TPWG,
In response to the Chairs' decision on the tri-part choice
requirement for user agents, we are submitting the following formal
objection.
Formal Objection to the
TPWG Chairs’ Decision Regarding A “Tri-part choice
requirement for users agents.”
For the reasons set out below, we object to the
Chairs' decision with regard to a
"Tri-‐part choice requirement for user agents," (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0197.html) and
respectfully request the
Director and the Chairs to reconsider and instead adopt
Option B, the tri-‐part
requirement, as the decision of the working group. In sum,
Option B is the only
option that meets the group’s aims and the requirements of
the charter, because it
goes to ensuring users have an adequate range of choices
available to them.
The decision followed a working group poll in
which two options were presented,
and working group participants were asked to state
objections to either of the
options. Option A was "silence"; User Agent's (UAs) as
currently defined in the draft
specification would not be required in the specification
"to provide a DNT:0 option
that is equally easy to turn on as DNT:1." Option B, on
the other hand, would create
mandatory guidelines requiring that a "user agent MUST
require equal effort to
configure their agent to each of a minimum of three
choices for a Do Not Track
preference: 1, 0 or unset."
This is a crucial issue for the specification,
as it goes to the fundamental problem of
whether a DNT signal sent by a UA, and received by a
server, reflects an informed,
deliberate choice by the user. It has implications for the
credibility and ultimate
adoption rate of the specification.
The Co-‐Chairs' decision misunderstands or
mischaracterizes the objections to
Option A, and the strength thereof, and implements a
decision that is inconsistent
with the aims and charter of the TPWG, and that is not
conducive to the success of
the specification.
The TPWG’s mission includes “improv[ing] user
privacy and user control by
defining mechanisms for expressing user preferences around
Web tracking,” and
the group’s charter calls for a “simple machine-‐readable
preference expression
mechanism.” The goal of simplicity and the infeasibility
of complex user interfaces
necessitate a limiting of users’ choice. This is natural.
However, in limiting choices,
we limit information, and run the risk that a user’s
choices are inadequately
informed. Moreover, with the ability to limit users’
choices often comes centralized
control that can be misused to influence markets. This has
been the case in the past
in many markets, including telephone service, web
browsers, and automobiles.
Recall Henry Ford’s famous quote: “Any customer can have a
car painted any color
that he wants so long as it is black.”
So, therefore, the problem becomes one of
degree. What is the minimum availability
of choices that is needed to ensure users have a real
choice beyond just “black” or
nothing? The proposed option, Option B, addresses this
issue in a minimally
prescriptive way that allows user agents extremely broad
latitude to craft user
interfaces, while meeting simple guidelines around the
relative availability of
alternative DNT choices. Option A leaves the issue
without guidance, and entirely to
the whims of user agent designers who, for one reason or
another, may not care to
give the user much control. Therefore, the Chairs erred
in deciding to adopt Option
A over Option B.
The Co-‐Chairs' decision was organized
according to "themes" that were elucidated
from participants' comments. Although we disagree with
the framing of the
"themes," for clarity we follow their format and address
themes individually.
A. Support of EU and other Compliance
Regimes
Under their response regarding this theme, the
Co-‐Chairs rightly point out that legal
compliance is not a goal of the TPWG. However, the
Co-‐Chairs missed the point of
various participants' comments regarding consent: that
ensuring users are able to
express an informed and meaningful choice is a
legitimate and necessary goal, and
not just a matter of legal compliance. The TPWG has
already discussed and is near
consensus on the view that DNT must reflect users'
choice and that, for example,
DNT on by default would generally not be reflective of a
user's choice. One pending
option in the TCS document provides explicit guidelines
for achieving explicit and
informed consent from a user. Option A does not provide
UA's adequate guidance
regarding what is required to achieve users' explicit
and informed consent. Only
Option B provides such guidance.
B. Incomplete specification of user agents
On this point – that without specification UA's "may
implement DNT in undesirable
ways" – the Co-‐Chairs' rejected objections to Option A
(and support of Option B)
under the rationale that the TPWG charter does not allow
specification of UI. Under
Option B, however, does not specify UI, but would
provide guidelines that define
user experience, as allowed under the charter. The
Option says only that the three
states must require equal effort; it does not specify
how this is to be achieved, or
otherwise in what form the choices must be presented. It
does not even require that
they be presented together. Rather, it requires that
each be accessible with equal
effort. This guideline is intended to ensure the user's
choice rises to the level of
informed consent required by the standard. This intent
was raised in the objections
to Option A, but disregarded, or misinterpreted by the
Co-‐Chairs in making their
decision.
D. Ability to validate against the spec
Here the Co-‐Chairs side with comments suggesting
Option B would add untestable
elements to the specification. If testability is a
requirement for elements of the
specification, then much of the specification fails. Not
once yet has testability been
raised as a requirement for any element of the TCS, and
no such requirement exists
in the charter. Although testability is an
obvious need for true technical
specifications, as the W3C ordinarily produces,
testability under many elements of
the TCS document is virtually hopeless. For example,
elements of the specification
rely on such vague and untestable standards as "infer
with a high probability,"
"confidence," "reasonably necessary," "reasonable
efforts," and so on. To apply a
testability standard to only UI guidance, but not other
crucial elements of the
specification would be an untenable double standard.
E. Ability to express actual user
preference
Here, in rejecting the argument that the three state
requirement is essential to
ensuring fully informed consent, the Co-‐Chairs reframe
the issue, stating that "the
input received does not argue why a 3-‐state UI is the
only way to ensure that users
can express preferences." The Co-‐Chairs go on to state
that they "do not conclude
that all user agents must offer all preferences for all
users as the only way" for users
to find ways to express their preferences. The decision
misses the point. First,
Option B does not require a 3-‐state UI, but only that
UA's "require equal effort to
configure their agent to each of a minimum of three
choices." But more importantly,
Option A, silence, does not ensure that users have the
opportunity to fully
understand their choices and make an informed choice. It
is not a matter of users
finding ways to express their preferences. It is a
matter of ensuring that users have
the opportunity to express adequately informed choices.
F. Simplicity, Innovation and
Differentiation for User Agents
In agreeing with objections to Option B, the chairs
state that "specifying a user
interface is out of scope by our charter." This
mischaracterizes Option B. The charter
states that "while guidelines that define the user
experience or user interface may
be useful (and within scope), the Working Group will not
specify the exact
presentation to the user." Option B does not specify the
exact presentation, but
rather states guidelines that must be met to ensure
users have adequate access to
the full range of choices available under the standard.
This is far from specifying UI,
and leaves considerable latitude to UA makes to
determine how the guidelines will
be met.
G. Unbiased Representation
The Chairs dismiss concerns about bias and fairness on
the part of UA's, saying
they "have not seen evidence as to why requiring all
three options with equal effort
satisfies the goal of fairness." It is self-‐evident
that in many cases companies with
competitive interests at stake, and that stand to
benefit from widespread DNT
usage, also control users' experience of the Internet.
Requiring that UA's satisfy
guidelines with regard to equitable availability of all
DNT options is a minimally
prescriptive means to try to limit the extent to which
competitive interests are not
at play in UA’s influencing users' DNT choices, and that
therefore a DNT signal
reflects a truly informed choice.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, and in the interest of producing
a specification that is
credible, fair, and that will garner widespread
adoption, we respectfully request the Director and the
TPWG Chairs to reconsider this decision with regard to a
tri-part choice requirement for user agents.
We thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Jason Bier, ValueClick
Alan Chapell, Chapell & Associates
Brooks Dobbs, KBMG
Marc Groman, NAI
Dan Jaffe, ANA
Peter Kosmala, 4A’s
Lou Mastria, DAA
Dick O’Brien, 4A’s
Clark Rector, AAF
Brendan Riordan-‐Butterworth, IAB
Rachel Nyswander Thomas, DMA
David Wainberg, NAI
Shane Wiley, Yahoo!
Jeff Wilson, AOL
Kimon Zorbas, IAB Europe
tri-part_objection_final
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 00:52:39 UTC