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

RE: ISSUE-151 Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:22:47 +0100
To: "'Rigo Wenning'" <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: "'Aleecia M. McDonald'" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <01c401ce8bbf$764830a0$62d891e0$@baycloud.com>

+1 to that. Especially the bit about making the TPE the best we can, beyond
1.0 if we have to. 

But I do not see why we had to "abandon of the global considerations work",
there are enough of us who recognise the need for that. And technical input
might be even more important now, especially considering the on-going TTIP
negotiations and  the astounding PRISM/TEMPORA revelations.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: 28 July 2013 17:21
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: Re: ISSUE-151 Re: Change proposal: new general principle for
permitted uses

On Sunday 28 July 2013 00:35:24 Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> And then something really weird happened. US users have turned on DNT 
> in their browsers at a truly surprising rate. Even without promotion, 
> even without DNT being honored by most websites, we're looking at 
> about 1/6th of users turning on DNT in Firefox. The incentives shift.

And something really weird happened in Europe: UK-ICO, with support from the
concerned industry succeeded in getting an implementation in some EU
countries that work with "implied consent". You get a banner that says: 
"If you continue, you'll accept whatever we will do, see our 42 pages of
legalese". This is less protection than the US has. De-facto. This lead to
the abandoning of the global considerations work and changed the interest
and incentives. If you're a big data consumer, it is much more attractive to
spend your time on a generalization of "implied consent". 
Because it means that the EU goes de-facto on the US level (must have
privacy policy). 
> The idea of supposing a principled argument about lack of user choice 
> is a bit hard to take seriously given the EU treatment. From the first 
> meeting, we've all been fine with EU users having DNT protection 
> without making explicit choices to turn on DNT:1.

Given the above, the lack of user choice discussion starts to make perfect
sense. And suddenly, as the regulator-argument is gone, the only arguments
that remain are "market unrest" and "browser arms race". Both are linked. 
> It seems to me the challenges to DNT are not the ones we're talking 
> about right this moment. Could we deal with real issues?

The interesting question is that we want to jump on last call while the
underlying issue has changed. We are trying to match a moving target here.
Even worth: the target's moves are also determined by the way DNT advances
and by the way it is shaped. So even if we have that discussion, it will
only give you a glimpse of a certainty for a fixed moment in time. 

The alternative is to put out a useful tool and see how the market reacts.
Translated into W3C process, it means we should make the Specification the
best we can and adapt during a longer Candidate Recommendation phase (CR)
where people try UGE and other features that go beyond the mere reception of
a DNT:1 header. Those tests will influence the market IMHO and then we
should have that discussion again. 

The new Mozilla access to browser history is a perfect example that  the UGE
might be useful. This could end in a TPE 1.1 if Mozilla is generous. 

Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 18:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:17 UTC