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

Re: TPE Handling Out-of-Band Consent (including ISSUE-152)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:19:53 +0100
To: public-tracking@w3.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <1754176.c0eDyM5ROt@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
David, 

what I see is the question who bears the risk of error. Ronan says: we 
activate our data-vacuum-cleaner and expect the browser not to interfere 
because 24 hours later we may be able to show out-of-band consent. If we 
are unable, we will de-identify in some way. 

This basically raises the question how one can opt-out of an unknown 
state. I think there are two ways depending on who takes the higher 
risk: 

1/ Ronan's vacuum-cleaner makes sure they have the consent they need and 
indicate that by storing an exception and getting DNT:0 behavior. If 
they have stored exceptions where they had no consent, the watchdogs 
will go after them. Risk is on their side.

2/ The browser basically allows for all collection and tracking 
technologies even under DNT:1 and at some point someone may go to some 
URI to find out whether there was consent. Or perhaps not even that. 
Risk is on the user's side. 

I think in Ronan's scenario, they should signal "C" and take the risk of 
overstating while cleaning out their base ASAP. On the long run, they 
will have to think about how to handle DNT:1 users and whether they want 
to leverage the DNT signal for their system which would remove the 
uncertainty. Because they could determine at any moment in time whether 
they have consent or not. They could just look it up in the browser in 
real time via the API. 

 --Rigo

On Tuesday 19 March 2013 12:22:48 David Singer wrote:
> > Walk me through how this works in practice.  TrackerCo's servers are
> > configured to send back a "possible consent" flag to everyone, and
> > then TrackerCo figures out later how to differentiate among users
> > who have consented and those who have not.  How would the "control"
> > link be able to give the user information on request if TrackerCo
> > is incapable in real time of figuring it out for itself?
> I think that it's possible the collection is happening e.g through a
> CDN, which doesn't easily know in real-time, , whereas the control
> link (which would probably not be often used) would go back to the
> sign-in site and know.  
> 
> That's the only way I can see it happening.  I am not even sure I like
> it.
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 10:20:27 UTC

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