- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:27:38 -0400
- To: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>, 'Justin Brookman' <jbrookman@cdt.org>, 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>
- CC: 'Shane Wiley' <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, 'Peter Swire' <peter@peterswire.net>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CDDF4E9D.33232%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Thanks Craig - I probably wasn't being clear enough in my question. As I understand it, Safari turns on DNT automatically during a Private Browsing session. I'm asking if DNT remains on, or is turned off when the Private Browsing session ends. From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org> Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:18 AM To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, 'Justin Brookman' <jbrookman@cdt.org>, 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com> Cc: 'Shane Wiley' <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, 'Peter Swire' <peter@peterswire.net>, <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: RE: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org> Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:19:33 +0000 > This is really determined by the browser vendor and or user setting if > ³private browsing² (InPrivate, IncognitoŠ) is a session based or persistent > setting. > > > From: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:07 AM > To: Justin Brookman; Craig Spiezle; David Singer > Cc: 'Shane Wiley'; 'Peter Swire'; public-tracking@w3.org > Subject: 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#determini >> ng. 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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com> ] >> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:31 AM >> To: Peter Swire; public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto:peter@peterswire.net> > >> Date: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:47 AM >> To: "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> " >> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> > >> Subject: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec >> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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 >>> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-june. >>> html> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 14:28:21 UTC