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

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

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:04:41 +0100
Message-ID: <50FFA7A9.8060208@schunter.org>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
CC: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>

Hi Jonathan,


if this is OK with you, I will let others speak for themselves.

I would like to learn from you whether
  (a) You can live with this revised approach where browsers can 
double-check the exceptions that are collected at a site
  (b) If not,
     what are YOUR specific substantiated concerns?
     why/how have they been resolved in the prior proposal?
     how could we improve the revised approach in order to mitigate your 
concerns?


Thanks a lot!

matthias



On 22/01/2013 22:32, 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 [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:38 PM
>> *To:* Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
>> *Cc:* David Singer; public-tracking@w3.org 
>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org 
>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
>> *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) <mts-std@schunter.org
>>             <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> wrote:
>>
>>                 --------------------------------
>>
>>                 ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on
>>                 user agent behavior while granting and for future
>>                 requests?
>>
>>                 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
>>
>>                 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
>>
>>                 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/190
>>
>>                 Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328
>>                 and (unless there are objections), I suggest to
>>                 implement the changes suggested:
>>
>>                 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0004.html
>>
>>             please let the editors know when to clean these two
>>             references from the document…
>>
>>             David Singer
>>
>>             Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 09:05:10 UTC

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