- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:22:21 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Mike, thanks for the proposed language. Why is it insufficient to respond with "3" (I am following third party rules and this content can be safely used in a 3rd party context)? Regards, Matthias On 21/04/2013 21:19, Mike O'Neill wrote: > On the last call Roy asked for text to clarify how EU servers should respond with a 1 or 3 tracking status. > > Given that a server under an EU jurisdiction has no need to differentiate between resources designed for use in first-party or third-party contexts the current requirement for a 1 or 3 response (unless no tracking whatsoever is used) is redundant and potentially confusing for implementers. Last October I posted issue-183 which called for an "E" response in this situation. Perhaps an "A" (for "Any") might be more generally applicable. > > I suggest the following text (5.2.4.1): > > <h4>Any Party (A)</h4> > <p>A tracking status of A means that the origin server makes no claim about the context the designated resource was designed for and that it conforms to at least the requirements, under this standard, of a third-party. In jurisdictions that require that all resources conform to at least the requirements of a third-party a tracking status value of 1,3 or A are equivalent.</p> > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] > Sent: 21 April 2013 17:31 > To: David Singer; Jonathan Mayer; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation); public-tracking@w3.org > Subject: Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!" > > > Also, on a more fundamental level, my position is that ALL permitted uses in the TCS section 6.2.2.7 MUST have a qualifying equivalent in the TPE section 5.4.2. > > Rob > > 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 Monday, 22 April 2013 08:22:47 UTC