Re: claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT

Alan:  The accusation that DNT is trying to "radically" change the Internet is such an absurd charge, it must be rebutted. I appreciate your loyalism to the online ad industry.  But finally addressing the long-standing failure to incorporate privacy in the business model should not, in any way, require radical change.  It does require transparency, candor, and respect for users.  These are qualities I assume responsible companies marketing online know are part of any sustainable business practice.   

 I am very disturbed by the action of Adobe, which I find unfortunate. 

Although Fall and cooler weather approach, it appears we are still having a long, hot, DNT summer!

Regards,

Jeff

On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> Hi Jeff:
> 
> I'm sorry you're taking issue. Would you have been more comfortable had I used the term "online media and advertising landscape" rather than "the internet" is being radically changed? If that's your beef, I'll certainly take that into consideration in future posts.
> 
> That said, it might be worth re-sharing the article that John Simpson kindly shared. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57508351-93/apache-web-software-overrides-ie10-do-not-track-setting/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=News-PoliticsandLaw) 
> 
> Correct me if you still think I'm wrong, but if MSFT has changed its browser in response to DNT, and Apache software is making significant changes as a result of DNT, don't those count as significant (if not radical) changes? Please keep in mind, these are changes that have been implimented before the group has even released a spec. Is it not reasonable to conclude that there might be other changes as a result of our group's work? 
> 
> That said, I strongly disagree with your baseless accusation that I'm engaging in "tactics of delay/obfuscation."  
> 
> Can't we all be a bit more civil to each other?
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> Date: Friday, September 7, 2012 3:56 PM
> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
> Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
> Subject: claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT
> 
> Alan:
> 
> I take issue with your charge that the search for user control over third party tracking/surveillance is "radically changing the Internet."  That's a dangerous and unsupported charge.  
> 
> The chairs need to help move the process through--and final disagreements can be formally filed and publicly vetted through the W3C objection process.  As for re-opening old issues, we must confront the realities of our pending deadline--and the need for a final outcome.
> 
> We should not be focused on the tactics of delay/obfuscation.  It's time to create a DNT standard that protects the public, including incorporating the Mozilla/EFF/Mayer elements.
> 
> Jeff
> Center for Digital democracy
> 
> 
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rigo -
>> 
>> I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by your response. I recognize and applaud
>> the tremendous work that Aleecia and Matthias have undertaken as part of
>> these proceedings.
>> 
>> However, if you're making the assertion that a W3C chair can take the
>> temperature of the room and just 'decide' consensus on an issue without a
>> requirement of documentation of such consensus, you are at grave risk of
>> delegitimizing the W3C process and the output of our work here. If you're
>> asking Shane to offer proof that the "feeling in the room" is different
>> than Aleeica's recollection, I'm sort of left scratching my head how one
>> might do this. 
>> 
>> As I would hope you'd agree, we're radically changing the way the internet
>> works here. If our stated goal is to operate by group consensus, then it
>> would seem reasonable (not to mention beneficial for the legitimacy of our
>> output) to require that such consensus be documented and not left to
>> whimsy. If the issue was discussed, and the group's consensus was XXXX,
>> then its up to the group to document that consensus - or else, why bother
>> to document anything in IRC?
>> 
>> On a related note, there's been a few emails regarding the re-opening of
>> old issues. And from what I gather, there is a strong resistance to
>> re-opening issues on the part of the co-chairs and others. I can certainly
>> understand some level of resistance - as its difficult to move forward if
>> we're going back and revisiting old issues. That said, I'd like to point
>> out that many issues have been 'closed' without fully defining key terms
>> such as TRACKING. And as I (and others) have consistently pointed out,
>> where there are issues that are dependent upon a complete understanding of
>> key terms, I reserve the right to look to re-open those issues. If the W3C
>> is telling me that you will be unwilling to re-open these issues, then I
>> think we're all in for a challenging time at the next face to face
>> meetings.
>> 
>> 
>> If you can provide additional guidance here, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Alan Chapell
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/6/12 4:44 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Shane, 
>>> 
>>> please do not overburden the chair. In W3C the Chair asserts
>>> consensus. This may be a feeling in the room. If you disagree,
>>> please provide evidence that the Chair was wrong assuming consensus.
>>> You may find such evidence in the meeting minutes or on the mailing
>>> list. 
>>> 
>>> This doesn't say who is right or wrong, but Chairs are vulnerable
>>> and exposed in the W3C Process and we have to protect them.
>>> 
>>> Rigo
>>> 
>>> On Thursday 06 September 2012 11:24:12 Shane Wiley wrote:
>>>> I was in Seattle and don't remember us truly considering this
>>>> option if you're referring to your exercise of walking the
>>>> working group through alternatives if the W3C DNT standard was
>>>> not completed - is that what you're referring to?  Could you
>>>> please help me find the section in the meeting notes that you
>>>> feel was a fair "group consideration and rejection" of this
>>>> concept?
>>>> 
>>>> Failing that, I believe this is a NEW and VALID issue for the
>>>> group to discuss and consider (and either accept or reject).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
> 

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220