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

Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187) [pls Respond by Mar 22]

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:26:27 -0700
Cc: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <ECDD7242-F9D3-431D-8080-FDAA5E15E91D@apple.com>
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>

On Mar 19, 2013, at 16:12 , Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:

> David,
> 
> Let's hold this conversation over for a weekly phone call.  I don't have time now, and I suspect there are many others who would chime in on all sides.
> 
> Briefly:
> 
> 1) The "informed consent" language is so vague as to be nearly unenforceable.  I'm hardly the only participant to raise that concern.

I fail to see why it's better to have the site get and the UA confirm 'informed consent' (the prior state), than to have the site be clearly solely responsible (the new state).

More to the point, 'informed consent' is a term of art in the legal community, used in the compliance document, and potentially will be defined there (there is a candidate section). It need not be, and probably is not, vague.

> 3) All of your use case answers were prefaced with "[t]he user may have told . . . ."  I doubt there would be objections about browser behavior where a user has explicitly set some preference or requested some particular form of notice.  The hard use cases have to do with default or quasi-default user experience in exception granting and notice.

The flow is 

* the user chooses a user-agent, with its handling of DNT, exceptions, and everything else...
* the site detects the need for an exception
* they guide the user to somewhere where the need is explained, the consequences of granting and not granting are explained, and then the user is asked "choose wisely" [[aka 'informed consent']]
* they call the API; the UA may trust the site, and simply record, or it may confirm, or alert, orů

> Feel free to respond, with the caveat that I'm cutting myself off.  Already spent far more time than I intended.  ISSUE-187 should not be CLOSED.

I keep persisting because you're clearly anxious and unhappy, but precisely why or about what is not getting through to my thick skull, and it's hard to not go to CLOSED unless we know what remains to be answered or discussed.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 23:27:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC