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

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

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:22:21 +0200
Message-ID: <5174F33D.3090107@schunter.org>
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

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