Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]

I would be fine with Shane's approach as I understand it, but I'm not 
sure we've gotten consensus from industry participants as a group that a 
"vague" explicit standard would be sufficient for setting DNT in the 
first place.  For example, I recall the most recent W3C industry 
proposal specifically requiring a link to more information about DNT for 
consent to be valid, and the original DAA statement on the White House 
DNT announcement seemed to envision more user education before DNT would 
be honored.  If I'm forgetting more recent developments (well possible), 
happy to be corrected.  Like Shane says, it cuts both ways, so shouldn't 
be terribly controversial (e.g., Jonathan might well be OK with all 
that, so long as the standards are equally exacting for getting a UGE).  
I personally feel less prescriptive for both is probably better, but not 
going to stand in the way of progress if everyone wants rigid rules.

Justin Brookman
Director, Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
tel 202.407.8812
fax 202.637.0969

On 1/22/2013 4:32 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> Advertising participants appear to favor no consent requirements 
> and control over the exception experience.  Advocates favor 
> well-defined consent rules and browser intermediation in the exception 
> experience.  A vague consent standard and primarily third-party 
> control over the exception experience reflect some measure of 
> compromise from both sides, to be sure, but I'd hardly characterize it 
> as a "middle ground."
> At any rate, that's all besides the point.  The group does not have 
> consensus in favor of the new approach.  ISSUE-144 should not be closed.
> Jonathan
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>> To your points, I believe the middle-ground it appears many agreed to 
>> (from both sides - at least at the last F2F and recent calls/IRC) was:
>> - Consent:  keep the need for explicit consent but don’t define this 
>> in granular terms (cuts both ways from an activation / exception 
>> perspective)
>> - Exceptions and UAs:  allow exceptions to be directly recorded but 
>> allow UAs to optionally build verifications systems if they so desire
>> If you disagree with these concessions from both sides, please let 
>> the group know.
>> Thank you,
>> - Shane
>> *From:*Jonathan Mayer []
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:38 PM
>> *To:* Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
>> *Cc:* David Singer; 
>> <> ( 
>> <>)
>> *Subject:* Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, 
>> ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]
>> Participants from the advertising industry have raised objections 
>> about standards for consent in the new model.  Advocacy group members 
>> have expressed concerns about removing browser chrome from the 
>> exception user experience.  It seems apparent that we do not have a 
>> consensus in favor of the new approach.
>> Jonathan
>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel 
>> Corporation) wrote:
>>     Hi Jonathan,
>>     I believe that we agree to focus on this new approach:
>>     - Many participants expressed preference for the new approach
>>     (while saying that some fine-tuning is still required)
>>     - All participants "can live with" this new approach
>>     From a privacy perspective, IMHO it is beneficial that user
>>     agents can validate exceptions
>>     with the actual user and can keep an (editable) database of all
>>     granted exceptions. Also - due to the fact that less
>>     requirements are imposed on the UA - I believe that UAs can
>>     compete and differentiate more effectively with this new approach.
>>     Opinions?
>>     Regards,
>>     matthias
>>     On 22/01/2013 17:57, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
>>         Do we have a consensus in favor of the new approach to
>>         exceptions?  It's been discussed a lot, but as I recall, some
>>         members of the group have reservations.
>>         On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 3:23 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>             If we close these, I suggest that those that are
>>             mentioned in the text get their mentions removed,
>>             specifically:
>>             On Jan 21, 2013, at 14:07 , Matthias Schunter (Intel
>>             Corporation) <
>>             <>> wrote:
>>                 --------------------------------
>>                 ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on
>>                 user agent behavior while granting and for future
>>                 requests?
>>                 IMHO, the new approach to exceptions has removed the
>>                 requirements on the user agent.
>>                 As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
>>                 ----------------------------------
>>                 ISSUE-190: Sites with multiple first parties
>>                 Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328
>>                 and (unless there are objections), I suggest to
>>                 implement the changes suggested:
>>             please let the editors know when to clean these two
>>             references from the document…
>>             David Singer
>>             Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 21:58:09 UTC