W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2013

Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!"

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:32:52 +0200
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c94fae3e0b83ba5f3f7997c94eb3b073@xs4all.nl>

s/TPE 5.4.2/TPE 5.4.3/

Rob van Eijk schreef op 2013-04-21 18:15:
> David wrote:
>> I think we have heard from very few people here.
> 
> The discussion about a tracking status value of ! is useful in the
> sense that it allows to rethink if the granular dialogue that has been
> crafted is fit for purpose. In my opinion it is not. It makes no sense
> to me that a company can make representations to honor DNT in e.g.
> it's DNT statement on the website and then ignore DNT by responding
> with !. It contradicts with transparency.
> 
> If a party representations is such that is honors DNT, the best way
> IMHO to signal testing or debugging is not in the tracking status
> value, but in the qualifier (TPE section 5.4.3).
> 
> So I suggest to remove "!" in TPE section 5.2.1 and adjust the table
> in TPE section 5.4.2 such that it links to the permitted use for
> debugging (TCS section 6.2.2.7).
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> David Singer schreef op 2013-04-21 03:56:
>> On Apr 21, 2013, at 2:42 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 at 1:43 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 13:02 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> David,
>>>>> I disfavor having any selective noncompliance flag. I'm open to 
>>>>> the idea of a debugging/testing/phasing-in flag, but it would have 
>>>>> to be narrowly scoped (e.g. specific uses and limited duration) and 
>>>>> explicitly disallowed as a basis for claiming Do Not Track protocol 
>>>>> or policy compliance.
>>>> well, the specific use is for when a site is not yet ready to claim 
>>>> compliance; why would the duration need a formal limit?
>>> A website might repurpose an indefinite debugging/testing/phasing-in 
>>> flag as a de facto selective non-compliance flag. I'd like to 
>>> mitigate that possibility.
>> I don't understand the "selective" in your sentence.
>> 
>>>> yes, agreed, the documentation needs to state that the use of this 
>>>> flag is a declaration that compliance is not claimed.
>>>> * * * *
>>>> On 'I am Disregarding you', I am trying to work out your 
>>>> alternative in my mind. It seems that if there are going to be sites 
>>>> that will ignore DNT signals, you would prefer a state in which they 
>>>> could say nothing, and signal nothing, unless someone finds out (and 
>>>> how would they)? The site could, if challenged, say "we decided to 
>>>> ignore signals we deemed non-compliant". The user, unable to see 
>>>> that their data is being added to a database, is none the wiser, the 
>>>> privacy researcher is unaware, and so on. Is this really better?
>>> If a website claimed to support Do Not Track but surreptitiously 
>>> ignored certain DNT: 1 signals, it could face grave legal, business, 
>>> and media consequences.
>> "…if it is found out, and they don't successfully argue that they can
>> be non-compliant in response to what they believe are non-compliant
>> signals"
>> As for detection, there are a number of technical options that I'd be
>> glad to discuss.
>> For what it's worth, note the lineup of stakeholders on this issue:
>> it's not the advocates, regulators, and researchers clamoring for a
>> selective noncompliance signal. It's the websites that want to
>> practice selective noncompliance.
>> I think we have heard from very few people here. I suggested it,
>> since I like transparency. Shane accepted it, and almost no-one else
>> has said
>> 
>>>> 
>>> For what it's worth, I don't think it's OK to practice selective 
>>> non-compliance, unless forced. But I do support transparency. Yes, 
>>> they may be trying to 'soften the blow' by not being accused of lying 
>>> to users as well as not always complying. "Yes, it's true we don't 
>>> always observe DNT signals, but we're up front about it".
>> 0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style:
>> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
>> normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto;
>> text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
>> 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
>> -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
>> -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust:
>> auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2013 16:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:29 UTC