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 11:12:47 +0100
Message-ID: <50FFB79F.5020008@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Jonathan,


thanks for the note.

At this point in time, I do not have sufficient information to qualify 
your objection as "substantiated".
Could you answer my questions (or point me to specific messages where 
you have answered them before)?

I would like to learn what needs to be done to improve the new approach 
to exceptions in order to allow you to say that you can live with it.


Thanks a lot!

matthias

On 23/01/2013 10:51, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> A member of W3C staff reached out to thank me for keeping track of the 
> group's state on this issue.  I'm quite confused: Is it now out of 
> order to recall the positions that various participants have taken?
>
> As for my views, they're still nascent.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel 
> Corporation) wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 10:13:13 UTC

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