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

Re: TPE: Closing ISSUE-138 and implementing the change proposed by ACTION-179?

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:16:29 -0500
Message-ID: <50F75EFD.4050500@networkadvertising.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, public-tracking@w3.org


On 1/16/13 3:01 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
> It is expected that the site will explain, in its online content, the 
> need for an exception, and the consequences of granting or denying an 
> exception, to the user.
>
> But perhaps a clearer paragraph is warranted.  Perhaps after the 
> paragraph above we could write something simpler than originally 
> proposed here, like this?
>
> It is the responsibility solely of the party requesting an exception 
> to explain to the user the scope of the exception, the reason it is 
> needed, and the consequences of granting or denying the request, 
> including identifying the ownership of liability. The site MUST 
> acquire the user's informed consent immediately prior to making the call.
>
This language is, in effect, offering a definition of "informed consent" 
by providing proposed elements for informed consent. If it goes in at 
all, it belongs in the consent doc, which has an open issue regarding 
what to say about explicit informed consent. See 3.10 in the TCS.

Perhaps the tech spec could contain a more general reference:

As described above, it is the responsibility solely of the site making 
the call to determine that an exception grant reflects the user's 
informed consent at the time of the call. /Implementers should refer to 
the TCS document or other sources, as applicable, for standards 
regarding what is required for informed consent./
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 02:16:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:18 UTC