Re: Issue-207

+1 to Shane. Transparency is the key.

> On Apr 17, 2014, at 4:49 PM, "Shane M Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> Rob,
> 
> I agree Transparency is important that's why I'm supporting a required resource link when the "D" response is sent.  I can't foresee all of the unexpected things that browsers or 3rd parties may do so I'm hesitate to develop a list for you that could be represented as exhaustive or complete.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:44 PM
> To: Shane M Wiley
> Cc: Justin Brookman; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> Subject: RE: Issue-207
> 
> 
> Shane,
> 
> Transparency is important for user trust. Would you be willing to draft a limitative list with reasons for dropping the signal?
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
> Shane M Wiley schreef op 2014-04-17 22:34:
>> Rob,
>> 
>> I believe a specific resource for each possible issue would be costly
>> for Servers to support.  Having a single resource would help drive
>> adoption and I believe would be clear for users to clearly understand
>> (at least in the universe of reasons I'm contemplating).
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:02 PM
>> To: Shane M Wiley
>> Cc: Justin Brookman; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
>> Subject: RE: Issue-207
>> 
>> Shane, thanks.
>> 
>> Since the current editor's draft does not address issue-207, I
>> respectfully ask the Chairs to leave the issue open until we have
>> found a solution to accommodate any concerns.
>> 
>> The resource link should be specific. Listing all the options why the
>> signal could have been disregarded would not be enough in my view.
>> Equally, burying the explenation in a large text would not suffice
>> either. In that sense, I would accept the use of a specific D-clause,
>> separated from the general terms and conditions. However, if there is
>> more than just one reason why a valid expression was disregarded, I am
>> not convinced yet, that a generic resource link to explain why the
>> user may be receiving the disregard response is meeting our goal.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>> Shane M Wiley schreef op 2014-04-17 21:24:
>>> Rob,
>>> 
>>> The Working Group had originally agreed on two principles pre-W3C
>>> Staff/Co-Chair "June Draft" Compliance document that I believe are in
>>> alignment with your thinking here:
>>> 
>>> 1) If a Server is representing compliance then they must send the "D"
>>> response when disregarding the user's signal, not simply disregard it.
>>> 2) A Server must accompany a "D" response with a resource link to
>>> explain why the user may be receiving the disregard response.
>>> 
>>> - Shane
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:02 PM
>>> To: Justin Brookman
>>> Cc: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: Issue-207
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Justin,
>>> Dear group members,
>>> 
>>> Having given this issue a bit more thought, I have come to the
>>> conclusion that something needs to be added the discussion. I
>>> therefore request the issue to remain open.
>>> 
>>> The TCS should IMHO include text that a party MUST provide information
>>> regarding the specific reason for not honoring the user expression. A
>>> key element, addressed in the TPE is that Tracking providers should
>>> not ever have to second-guess a user's expressed Do Not Track
>>> preference. It is fair to say, that users should not have to
>>> second-guess with regard to the D-signal (quid pro quo principle).
>>> Just responding with 'D' would not be enough IMHO to fulfill the quid
>>> pro quo. The user / user agent needs to know about the reason why the
>>> signal got disregarded. The party's representation MUST be be easy
>>> discoverable, clear and unambiguous. It MAY be machine readable. The
>>> guiding principle IMHO, is that transparency is key in the granular
>>> discussion between the user agent and the server to prevent e.g.,
>>> discrimination based on the use of (a certain brand of) technology, or
>>> just plain arbitrariness.
>>> 
>>> I am trying to strike the right balance hear, and welcome your views.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Recital 66
>>> 
>>>    "Third parties may wish to store information on the equipment of a
>>> user, or gain access to information already stored, for a number of
>>> purposes, ranging from the legitimate (such as certain types of
>>> cookies) to those involving unwarranted intrusion into the private
>>> sphere (such as spyware or viruses). It is therefore of paramount
>>> importance that users be provided with clear and comprehensive
>>> information when engaging in any activity which could result in such
>>> storage or gaining of access.
>>> The methods of providing information and offering the right to refuse
>>> should be as user-friendly as possible. Exceptions to the obligation
>>> to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited
>>> to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly
>>> necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific
>>> service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is
>>> technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant
>>> provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may
>>> be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other
>>> application. The enforcement of these requirements should be made more
>>> effective by way of enhanced powers granted to the relevant national
>>> authorities. "
>>> 
>>> Justin Brookman schreef op 2014-04-17 20:22:
>>>> On yesterday's call, we discussed ISSUE-207 (Conditions for
>>>> Disregarding (or Not) DNT Signals) against the Compliance
>>>> specification.  Previously, some working group participants had
>>>> argued that servers should never disregard or second guess DNT
>>>> signals that are correctly formed (syntactically valid).  However, as
>>>> we crafted the TPE, we explicitly provided for a mechanism that
>>>> allows servers to signal to a user that they are disregarding the
>>>> signal.  As adherence to TCS (or any other compliance regime) is
>>>> voluntary anyway, there may no longer be an argument that TCS should
>>>> prohibit disregarding certain DNT headers.  In any event, no one on
>>>> the call yesterday expressed support for the previous change proposal
>>>> to require servers to honor all DNT requests.
>>>> 
>>>> If anyone wishes to argue for amending the TCS to require compliance
>>>> with all DNT signals --- or alternatively thinks that TCS needs to be
>>>> revised to make it more clear that servers have the option to send a
>>>> D
>>>> (disregard) signal --- please reply on the mailing list.  Otherwise,
>>>> we will close the issue with no further edits as decided by consensus
>>>> in two weeks.

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 20:58:26 UTC