- 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>
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