Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec

Thanks Justin. I was unaware of the Private Browsing feature.

David, does Private Browsing turn on DNT automatically during a private
browsing session, and then turn it off automatically once the private
browsing session is over?



From:  Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date:  Monday, June 10, 2013 12:37 PM
To:  Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
Cc:  'Shane Wiley' <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Alan Chapell
<achapell@chapellassociates.com>, 'Peter Swire' <peter@peterswire.net>,
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec

> Previously, I thought we had agreement that selection of a special
> privacy-protective product or setting could imply consent to send DNT:1  This
> agreement is currently reflected in the TPE in Section 3:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determinin
> g.  For example, I believe that Safari turns on DNT:1 whenever someone engages
> "Private Browsing" mode, despite no specific language about Do Not Track:
> http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html
> 
> However, that language/agreement may have been subsumed by more recent
> discussions.
> 
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:15 AM, "Craig Spiezle" <craigs@otalliance.org> wrote:
> 
>> I apologize for possibly bringing up a closed issue, but do you see a
>> distinction between a browser or a privacy / security enhancing product?   I
>> agree with what is proposed by a browser, but see there might be other
>> scenarios where the consumer is making an implied decision when acquiring a
>> third party security / privacy add-on?.
>>  
>> Conceptually let¹s call the product Privacy and Data Protector which by
>> default out of the box offers ³maximized protection of your data collection
>> and privacy².   Could one argue that one who purchases such a product in
>> effect is making an implied decision to use such functionality.  Better yet
>> Ad-Block Plus?  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com <http://yahoo-inc.com> ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:17 AM
>> To: Alan Chapell; Peter Swire; public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec
>>  
>> Friendly amendment suggestion:
>>  
>> ³Šunless they have otherwise obtained consent from the user to do so.²
>>  
>> - Shane
>>  
>> From: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:31 AM
>> To: Peter Swire; public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec
>>  
>> Thanks Peter. I'm still generally uncomfortable that DNT doesn't place
>> requirements on First Parties.
>>  
>> One item of particular concern that seems to have fallen off the radar is the
>> scenario where a party collects data in a first party context and attempts to
>> use it in a third party context when DNT is enabled. I thought there was
>> agreement on this issue. However, I keep raising it, and it doesn't seem to
>> make it into the drafts. Perhaps its implied in the language "Š customize the
>> content, services, and advertising in the context of the first party
>> experience." However, it is not clear enough, IMHO.
>>  
>> To address, I offer the following language to Section 4 (First Party
>> Compliance). The new language is below.
>>  
>> First Parties must not use data collected while a First Party when acting as
>> a Third-Party when DNT = 1.
>>  
>>  
>> Nick ­ if I need to open up another issue on this, please let me know.
>> Thanks!
>>  
>> Alan
>> From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
>> Date: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:47 AM
>> To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec
>> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:47:58 +0000
>>  
>>> To the Working Group:
>>>  
>>>         Attached please find a June Draft of the compliance spec.  The spec
>>> is also available at:
>>>  
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-june.h
>>> tml
>>>  
>>> This draft builds directly on the Consensus Action Summary from the
>>> Sunnyvale F2F.  Working closely with W3C staff, and based on numerous
>>> discussions with members of the WG, this June Draft is my best current
>>> estimate of a document that can be the basis for a consensus document in
>>> time for Last Call.
>>>  
>>>         The June Draft includes a number of grammatical and stylistic edits
>>> to various provisions of the previous working drafts.  These sorts of edits
>>> were done in hopes of adding clarity and good writing to the provisions.  In
>>> the spirit of humility, W3C staff and I recognize that members of the WG may
>>> spot substantive objections to these stylistic edits ­ let us work within a
>>> constructive spirit of the working group process to examine and, where
>>> appropriate, make changes to these edits.
>>>  
>>>         The Draft also addresses the four task areas included in the
>>> Consensus Action Summary.  In proposing language in the June Draft, my
>>> intent and belief was to make good substantive judgments about an overall
>>> package that may achieve consensus, as well as item-by-item judgments about
>>> what is substantively most defensible within the context of the WG.
>>> Clearly, the group will need to work through each piece of the text, members
>>> can suggest alternatives, and we will need to determine where and whether
>>> consensus exists.
>>>  
>>>         The June Draft contains normative text but not non-normative text.
>>> In part, this reflects my view that we have the best chance to work
>>> constructively on a relatively short amount of normative text.  Proposed
>>> non-normative text can be proposed for provisions in time for Last Call.  As
>>> a potentially useful alternative, W3C has various mechanisms for publishing
>>> notes or other documents that illuminate a standard.  The best time for
>>> detailed discussion of most non-normative text quite possibly will be after
>>> Last Call.
>>>  
>>>         The June Draft discusses only items that the W3C WG can address.
>>> Clearly, the actions of others on these issues may be relevant to the
>>> overall outcome.  For instance, the DAA has discussed changes to its code,
>>> including on its market research and product development exceptions.   There
>>> has been discussion of a potentially useful limit on any blocking of 3d
>>> party cookies for sites that comply withDNT.  There may also be new and
>>> useful technical measures that would be important to the future of
>>> advertising in a privacy-protective manner.  The text here, as indicated,
>>> addresses what would be within the compliance spec itself.
>>>  
>>>         W3C staff and I are working on further explanatory materials that
>>> will seek to clarify the changes here, and link the June Draft to the issues
>>> on the WG site.
>>>  
>>>         The regular call this Wednesday will be an opportunity for the Group
>>> to have an initialdiscussion of the June Draft.  To give everyone a chance
>>> to review this material, we will not be seeking to close compliance issues
>>> during this Wednesday¹s calls.
>>>  
>>>         Thank you,
>>>  
>>>         Peter
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Prof. Peter P. Swire
>>> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>>>            Ohio State University
>>> 240.994.4142
>>> www.peterswire.net <http://www.peterswire.net>
>>>  
>>> Beginning August 2013:
>>> Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
>>> Law and Ethics Program
>>> Scheller College of Business
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>  
>