Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Partial freezing of the User-Agent string (#467)

Thanks for the response. 

> Despite this reality, there is no public evidence of any attempt to consult with industry groups to understand the breath and severity of the impact of this proposed change to HTTP. It is a testament to its original design that the HTTP protocol has endured so well despite enormous changes in the internet landscape. Such designs should not be changed lightly.
>> The Client Hints infrastructure was thoroughly discussed at the IETF's HTTPWG, as well as its specific application as a replacement to the User Agent string.

I'm saying that there is insufficient industry realisation that this is going on, despite discussions in the HTTPWG. However well-intentioned the discussions are it seems that some web constituents are only vaguely aware of what's being proposed. Obviously this isn't any particular person's fault but it feels like more time or outreach is required for the industry to become aware of the proposal and respond. 

> What is missing from the discussion is any concrete evidence of the extent or severity of this supposed tracking. Making changes to an open standard that has been in place for over 24 years should require a careful and transparent weighing of the benefits and costs of doing so, not the opinion of some individuals. In this case the benefits are unclear and the central argument is disputed by experts in the field. The costs on the other hand are significant. The burden of proof for making the case that this truly is a problem worth fixing clearly falls on the proposer of the change.
>> There's a lot of independent research on the subject. Panopticlick is one from the EFF.

With respect, I don't think this answers my concern at all, specifically the extent of this supposed passive tracking. Panopticlick and others like it say what's _possible_ without saying anything about how widespread this tracking actually is, so I don't think that this counts as evidence of passive tracking. Furthermore, Panopticlick mixes both passive and active tracking. If there is independent research on the extent and severity of _passive_ tracking maybe you could cite it here? 

> Existence of data in the OpenRTB BidRequest object doesn't mean that users and their user agents are obligated to provide it to advertisers. For example, I also see Geolocation in that same object as "recommended". I'm assuming you don't think that browsers should passively provide geolocation data on every request.

No, of course not. And User agents are not obligated to send User-Agent headers either and can say whatever they want in them.

But the point is that most user agents have been sending useful User-Agent headers for the last 25 years or so and, for all its imperfection, the web ecosystem has grown up around this consensus, including the advertising industry that helps pay for so much of what we utilise on the web. 

> The user agent information would still be available to advertisers, they'd just have to actively ask for it (using UA-CH or the equivalent JS API) in ways that enable browsers to know which origins are gathering that data.

Yes, but they get it only on the second request—a significant drawback in an industry where time is everything, especially on mobile devices where connectivity issues are more likely. 

> The review states “Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: “ i.e. no unresolved issues or opposition. This is true only if you consider unilaterally closed issues to be truly closed. Here are a couple of issues that were closed rather abruptly, and coinciding with a Chrome intent.

>> I'm not sure what your point is here. These issues were raised (one by me), discussed, resolved and then closed.

Perhaps this is the normal process but the closure felt forced/abrupt. 


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/467#issuecomment-591512050