Re: Confused by DAA's messages. Please explain

David,

We're in agreement. What I'm looking for is for clarity, precision and
leadership from Apple and Adobe (you and Roy). It is time to stand for
something and not fall for every move from the DAA. I'Ve given up with the
Chairs as they seem more bent on political solutions versus doing the
right thing. 

Right now Apple is trailing Microsoft from a Privacy leadership position -
due to not recognizing what the customer wants and instead trying to
please other agendas. I've watched in the last few months as the DAA have
gone from one extreme when the 'uptake was less than 25%' (on sending a
DNT signal) to a brand new position when they've suddenly realized that
the uptake is much higher than they projected, and they need a new
definition of tracking quickly. Quite frankly it's just embarrassing.

If people were willing like Microsoft to recognize that the consumer is
fed up to the back teeth with tracking and fingerprinting and just a
general violation of Privacy, then maybe we would see more adult behavior.
Instead we're fast approaching 'Note' (suspended) status which will bring
in the regulators.




Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
Cell: 720.663.1752


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files
or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution of such information is prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by telephone or
return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments and
destroy any copies thereof. Thank you.










On 7/9/13 7:39 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
>On Jul 9, 2013, at 14:11 , Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> David,
>> 
>>>> in your opinion, which I think is flawed.
>> 
>> I went back again and reviewed the TPE ­ my personal opinion is that
>>Apple is walking a very fine line here with the spec. The TPE spec
>>requires a minimum of two choices ­  DNT:Unset (null) or DNT:1 ­ it MAY
>>offer a third choice DNT:0
>> 
>> So if go with the 'broadest' possible view of the spec I'd say that
>>you're right on the edge. In Safari iOS there is NO warning,
>>notification or whatever that DNT has been enabled. It's assumed that
>>because I want 'Private Browsing' that I also don't want to be tracked.
>>That's a VENDOR choice but you're including it as a CONSUMER choice.
>>Again a very fine line.
>
>As I say, the documentation, messaging, help and so on are a work in
>progress.  This small feature change was planned a long time ago, well
>before we had even specs we could point at, let alone agreed shared help
>text.
>
>> Lets talk about DNT:0 for a moment. This is required in the EU -
>>currently it's not in iOS 6 which means that 'technically' any iPhone
>>used overseas is not compliant.
>
>Please be careful with the use of words; compliance is a statement about
>the spec., and the spec. doesn't require being able to send DNT:0.
>Whether our EU users (or others) would find it desirable, necessary, or
>useful is something we're evaluating.  We're compliant; whether a DNT:0
>choice is needed for some users is another question.
>
>> Which makes me wonder how you intend to solve that one, especially if
>>I'm traveling between the US and EU. Where do I change MY choice -
>>currently you can't.
>
>You can turn on or off both DNT (naked) and DNT-with-local-privacy as
>much or as often as you like.  I don't understand your problem here.
>
>> In the US IMO you're borderline compliant - in the EU you're not
>>compliant. To solve the problem in an unambiguous manner there must be a
>>clear choice for the consumer, not a vendor imposed assumption.
>
>The user chooses privacy or not.  There is no 'assumption' here.  Indeed,
>if we find a need for local privacy protection (the 'clean slate' we
>establish in private browsing mode) WITHOUT DNT:1, we'll evaluate that.
>I have a hard time envisioning, right now, why it might be needed.  You
>want to be private, but NOT tell the servers you communicate with?
>
>> Also remember this thread was started because of the whole 'syntactic'
>>issue - until DNT has a method to determine who set the signal then if
>>the content provider says they honor that then they MUST follow the
>>spec. Singling out Microsoft or any other vendor is NOT possible via the
>>spec. If Roy wishes to add another patch to Apache that does that,
>>that's his prerogative, but now IMO he violates the spec again because
>>he's interfering with a signal that he cannot clearly detect was NOT set
>>by a user.   
>
>I agree. If you don't like the reason a product signals something, you
>honor the signal and complain to the authors.  You don't try (and often
>fail) to second-guess the user.
>
>
>David Singer
>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 16:11:20 UTC