- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:12:47 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50FFB79F.5020008@schunter.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