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

RE: Moving "C"onsent from Tracking Status to Permitted Use?

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:55:23 -0000
To: "'JC Cannon'" <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <079d01ce2c6b$ea7ce6e0$bf76b4a0$@baycloud.com>
Hi JC,

 

The AdChoices icon is used to establish the refusal of consent (and then
only for ad display not data collection) so I cannot see how it could be
used to signal the opposite. Do you mean if it is present on a page then
Tk:C is an adequate response if the icon has not been clicked? I do not
think that will fly.

 

I do not see why it would take long for browsers to implement the API,
hopefully people are already working on that. It did not take very long for
the majority of installed browsers to support the general preference.

 

Mike

 

From: JC Cannon [mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com] 
Sent: 28 March 2013 17:48
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: Moving "C"onsent from Tracking Status to Permitted Use?

 

Consider the scenario where Alice is using a browser that has DNT:1 enabled,
but does not have the exceptions API implemented yet. The site should still
be able to express consent without being penalized by the browser version.
To provide transparency and control the AdChoices icon, or some other
mechanism, could be used to provide Alice with those important elements.

 

Regards,

JC

 

From: JC Cannon [mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com] 
Sent: 28 March 2013 16:31
To: Mike O'Neill; 'Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)';
public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: Moving "C"onsent from Tracking Status to Permitted Use?

 

> OOB response headers might not be good enough, except for the first time,
because it is not as transparent or as simply revocable.

 

I think we should look at how we resolve that issue versus relying on an
API, which may or may not be there.

 

JC

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Neill [mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:41 AM
To: 'Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)'; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: Moving "C"onsent from Tracking Status to Permitted Use?

 

I think this also solves Adrian's use case, as far as I understand it,  of
establishing consent across devices, i.e. by a user clicking a link in an
email.

 

If the server can recognise it has OOB consent for this user (using a cookie
probably or a unique URI ) then it can convert it in-band as soon as it can.

i.e. by calling the API if the response is HTML or encouraging the user to
go the domain as a 1st party. There will need to be a way to get round
third-party default blocking (which is becoming the norm) and the consent
API is the best way to do that. OOB response headers might not be good
enough, except for the first time, because it is not as transparent or as
simply revocable.

 

There should be non-normative text recommending this so OOB consent is
positioned as a transitory mechanism rather than a replacement for the API. 

 

Mike

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org]

Sent: 28 March 2013 11:48

To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)

Subject: Moving "C"onsent from Tracking Status to Permitted Use?

 

Hi Team,

 

 

I discussed our approach to consent (in-band and out of band) with Rigo.

 

We observed that the fact that you have consent is orthogonal to the overall
tracking status.

As a consequence, we believe that "C"onsent should be signaled as a
qualifier (similar to a permitted use).

 

If we introduce this change, the scenario/flow for in-band exceptions would
not change:

    1. - The site has an exception and has therefore received DNT;0 from the
browser

    2. - The site responds with "1" or  "3" to indicate that they comply
with DNT

 

However, the flow for out-of-band exception would get clearer:

 

OLD:

    1. - The site receives DNT;1

    2. - The site (somehow) reliably determines _in real time_ that it has
out of band consent

    3. - The site responds with "C" thus indicating that it has out of band
consent

          and provides a control link.

 

NEW:

    1. - The site receives DNT;1

    2. - The site (somehow) reliably determines _in real time_ that it has
out of band consent

    3. - The site responds with "3C" thus indicating that

             - It acts as a 3rd party

             - It will use the data in ways that are beyond the usages
permitted by DNT;1 since

               it has obtained out of band consent. A  control link is still
required.

 

I think that modeling out of band consent as a permitted us is cleaner than
the current approach that models it as a special tracking status.

 

Note: This discussion is orthogonal to the discussion what to do if the site
cannot determine the consent in real time.

 

 

Opinions/Feedback?

 

 

Regards,

matthias

 

 

 

 

 
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 10:56:01 UTC

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