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 Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:24:10 -0800
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-id: <7BADA423-2F04-4E9C-86A1-658C7CF83EFA@apple.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>
You're right, it's not the place of the TPE to define informed consent.  My apologies.

I am tempted to be silent on that, and just take the first sentence you wrote.

"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"

But slowly Shane's text is getting shorter and shorter.  Shane?

On Jan 16, 2013, at 18:16 , David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> 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.

Shane's text:

> -----------
> ACTION-179: Draft section on seriousness of the request for a user-granted exception (with ninja)
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/179)
> (issue 129 is already closed).
> I would like to add this non-normative text to the TPE spec:
> "<Non-Normative> Requesting and having an exception granted by a user is a significant event and should be treated as such. When requesting site-wide or web-wide exceptions, the upmost care should be taken in relaying to the user the breadth and expanse of the exception they are granting. This is not to suggest the party requesting the exception takes on direct liability for the parties the user is granting an exception to but rather it's critical that requesters of user granted exceptions take care to appropriately express the scope of that exception such that liability is appropriately placed on the parties benefiting from the exception."
> -----------------
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 17:24:39 UTC

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