RE: Gentle reminder / text inputs to CfO

I support Aleecia on this change. It is mainly editorial as we already agreed the TSR should have a privacy policy for the server to support exceptions

 

https://w3c.github.io/dnt/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#user-interaction

 

 

From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] 
Sent: 29 May 2017 16:59
To: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Gentle reminder / text inputs to CfO

 

This is orthogonal to other issues, not a suggestion as a replacement for anything raised. You’ve all seen this twice before, but one more time:

 

With no standard compliance spec to set a minimum bar, a very common use case for all UIs will be to find a way to present text to users what they consent to when users agree to tracking. A standard hook to do this is both useful and necessary to ensure usability in practice, and address the gaping hole left by shooting the compliance spec. Of course, this also supports US law (AB 370) as well as likely EU law as well.

Specifically, I propose changes to section, 6.5.8 Policy Property, as follows:

1.      Change from MAY to SHOULD provide a policy property.

2.      Either:
a. Specify that while the exact details are out of spec, the Policy Property SHOULD inform users of what changes between DNT:0 and DNT:1, or
b. Extend to have two different policy properties, one for DNT:0 and the other for DNT:1.
(I suspect a is easier for users, and b is easier for implementors. I imagine others will have opinions as to which is better.)

3.      Additionally, add the following text: User agents implementing Do Not Track SHOULD present this information to users when asking them to make decisions about tracking.

Of note: this leaves all text in the hands of the companies of how to describe things. It only requires that they do so (as with AB 370) and that they do so in a way that user agents can hook into to make DNT at all usable in practice. This is a mighty low bar.

 

[Shane gave a fascinating primer on how he sees SHOULD. I prefer to go with the text that defines such things in the document itself. The only reason I did not go with MUST is that in some cases there may be no UI, e.g. a UA for IoT devices.]

 

               Aleecia

 

On May 28, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Folks,

by Monday 9am Pacific, all text proposals for the call for objections
must have been sent to the mailing list.
I suggest to mark inputs with [CfO-input] to emphasize them.

If I do not receive any text proposals by this deadline, I consider that
we reached a consensus to close this issue without changing the draft.

Regards,
matthias