IRC log of dnt on 2012-02-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:41:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:41:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:42:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
16:42:10 [aleecia]
Zakim, this will be dnt
16:42:10 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
16:42:24 [aleecia]
chair: aleecia
16:42:36 [aleecia]
agenda+ Selection of scribe
16:42:56 [aleecia]
agenda+ comments on minutes: Belgium, first day, 24 January:
16:43:25 [aleecia]
agenda+ Review of overdue action items:
16:43:38 [aleecia]
agenda+ Next face-to-face meeting, 10 - 12 April in Washington, DC
16:43:49 [aleecia]
agenda+ Discussion of timeline to get the Second Public Working Draft published
16:44:03 [aleecia]
agenda+ Discussion of pending review items
16:44:20 [aleecia]
agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
16:46:58 [aleecia]
regrets+ jmayer
16:47:23 [aleecia]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:48:08 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:50:21 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:50:27 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:50:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.674.aaaa
16:50:47 [Zakim]
16:51:01 [Zakim]
16:51:22 [Zakim]
+ +49.721.913.74.aabb
16:51:25 [Zakim]
16:51:28 [aleecia]
zakim, aaaa is aleecia
16:51:28 [Zakim]
+aleecia; got it
16:51:39 [dsriedel]
zakim, aabb is dsriedel
16:51:39 [Zakim]
+dsriedel; got it
16:51:55 [aleecia]
zakim appears to be forgetful today again
16:52:12 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:52:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, dsriedel, tl
16:52:28 [dsriedel]
got rebooted maybe
16:52:49 [aleecia]
(please mute if you're on the phone)
16:52:52 [dsriedel]
they might not persist all attendees
16:52:55 [dsriedel]
16:52:58 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
16:52:58 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
16:53:05 [aleecia]
16:54:46 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
16:55:18 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:55:41 [Zakim]
16:56:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aacc
16:56:42 [efelten]
Zakim, aacc is me
16:56:42 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
16:57:00 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:57:14 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:57:24 [Zakim]
16:57:32 [Zakim]
16:57:41 [npdoty]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:57:41 [RRSAgent]
16:57:44 [npdoty]
Zakim, agenda?
16:57:44 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
16:57:46 [Zakim]
1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia]
16:57:46 [Zakim]
2. comments on minutes: Belgium, first day, 24 January: [from aleecia]
16:57:46 [Zakim]
3. Review of overdue action items: [from aleecia]
16:57:46 [Zakim]
4. Next face-to-face meeting, 10 - 12 April in Washington, DC [from aleecia]
16:57:47 [Zakim]
5. Discussion of timeline to get the Second Public Working Draft published [from aleecia]
16:57:49 [Zakim]
6. Discussion of pending review items [from aleecia]
16:57:52 [Zakim]
7. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia]
16:58:07 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #DNT
16:58:22 [aleecia]
and logs are public
16:58:23 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:58:53 [aleecia]
no problem! If only I remembered to gen the minutes at the end all the time, we'd be good :-)
16:58:54 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:59:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.366.aadd
17:00:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aaee
17:00:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.270.aaff
17:00:15 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
17:00:29 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:00:38 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
17:00:40 [aleecia]
17:00:40 [Zakim]
17:00:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.934.aagg
17:00:46 [johnsimpson]
zakim, mute me
17:00:47 [aleecia]
zakim, agenda?
17:00:49 [jchester2]
Jeff Chester.
17:00:49 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:00:49 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
17:00:51 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:01:00 [Zakim]
17:01:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, dsriedel (muted), tl, rvaneijk, efelten, npdoty, ninjamarnau, +1.813.366.aadd, +1.202.326.aaee, +1.301.270.aaff, johnsimpson, +1.917.934.aagg, alex
17:01:09 [Zakim]
17:01:09 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
17:01:36 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:01:39 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should now be muted
17:01:40 [alex]
Zakim, alex is aadd
17:01:42 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
17:01:43 [Zakim]
1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia]
17:01:45 [Zakim]
2. comments on minutes: Belgium, first day, 24 January: [from aleecia]
17:01:49 [Zakim]
3. Review of overdue action items: [from aleecia]
17:01:51 [Zakim]
4. Next face-to-face meeting, 10 - 12 April in Washington, DC [from aleecia]
17:01:53 [Zakim]
5. Discussion of timeline to get the Second Public Working Draft published [from aleecia]
17:01:55 [Zakim]
6. Discussion of pending review items [from aleecia]
17:01:57 [Zakim]
7. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia]
17:01:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aahh
17:02:31 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
17:02:33 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
17:02:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.530.aaii
17:02:44 [npdoty]
scribenick: ninjamarnau
17:02:45 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
17:02:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.520.aajj
17:02:53 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
17:02:53 [justin_]
justin_ has joined #dnt
17:03:01 [Zakim]
17:03:11 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
17:03:13 [Zakim]
+aadd; got it
17:03:19 [efelten]
Zakim, aaee is PederMagee
17:03:28 [Zakim]
17:03:28 [aleecia]
17:03:30 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: We have a whole variety of minutes. If there are no comments we approve them all.
17:03:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.733.aakk
17:04:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.346.aall
17:04:11 [enewland]
enewland has joined #dnt
17:04:11 [vincent_]
vincent_ has joined #dnt
17:04:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.369.aamm
17:04:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.658.aann
17:04:29 [ninjamarnau]
... action-79 for karl to look at TPE lists
17:04:37 [rvaneijk]
on the minutes from Brussels day 2, please add hyperlink to WP29 presentation:
17:04:47 [ninjamarnau]
... no update. karl not on the call
17:04:53 [npdoty]
17:04:53 [trackbot]
ACTION-82 -- Thomas Lowenthal to assess the proposed JavaScript opt-back-in API with Mozilla mothership's JS gurus [ISSUE-27]. -- due 2012-02-10 -- OPEN
17:04:53 [trackbot]
17:04:56 [mg]
mg has joined #dnt
17:04:59 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:05:04 [dsinger]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:20 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.637.aaoo
17:05:21 [WileyS]
tl - are you on the call?
17:05:23 [Zakim]
+PederMagee; got it
17:05:29 [ninjamarnau]
... will ask tom about his action item
17:05:31 [tl]
Just dropped for a moment WileyS
17:05:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.852.aapp
17:05:57 [fielding]
Zakim, aapp is fielding
17:05:58 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
17:06:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.835.aaqq
17:06:01 [npdoty]
17:06:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-82 -- Thomas Lowenthal to assess the proposed JavaScript opt-back-in API with Mozilla mothership's JS gurus [ISSUE-27]. -- due 2012-02-10 -- OPEN
17:06:01 [trackbot]
17:06:06 [chapell]
chapell has joined #DNT
17:06:08 [Zakim]
17:06:17 [ninjamarnau]
... Action-82?
17:06:33 [Zakim]
17:06:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aarr
17:06:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.666.aass
17:06:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.349.aatt
17:06:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, dsriedel (muted), rvaneijk, efelten, npdoty, ninjamarnau, +1.813.366.aadd, PederMagee, +1.301.270.aaff, johnsimpson (muted), +1.917.934.aagg, aadd,
17:07:06 [Zakim]
... [Mozilla], +1.646.654.aahh, +1.202.530.aaii, +1.415.520.aajj, [Apple], ??P32, +1.617.733.aakk, +1.202.346.aall, +1.206.658.aann, +1.206.369.aamm, +1.202.637.aaoo,
17:07:09 [ninjamarnau]
tl: We have a draft but have not received final feedback to send it to the mailing list
17:07:09 [Zakim]
... +1.714.852.aapp, +1.202.835.aaqq, Helena, +1.202.326.aarr, +1.408.349.aatt, +1.646.666.aass
17:07:11 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:07:13 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
17:07:15 [Zakim]
17:07:15 [efelten]
Zakim, aarr is cOlsen
17:07:18 [npdoty]
Andy and Nick (that's me!) need to review Tom's latest draft
17:07:25 [pmagee]
pmagee has joined #dnt
17:07:32 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:07:38 [Zakim]
+fielding; got it
17:07:39 [BrianTs]
BrianTs has joined #DNT
17:07:40 [AC3]
AC3 has joined #dnt
17:07:51 [KevinT]
zakim, aajj is kevint
17:08:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see chapell, KevinT, cOlsen, mg, vincent_, enewland, justin_, tedleung, hwest, fielding, susanisrael, dsinger, sidstamm, alex, jchester2, hefferjr, kj, johnsimpson,
17:08:09 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: I will add two days to the deadline.
17:08:12 [Zakim]
... npdoty, ninjamarnau, WileyS, efelten, dsriedel, rvaneijk, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia, tlr, tl, mischat, karl, trackbot, pde, hober
17:08:19 [Zakim]
+cOlsen; got it
17:08:27 [Zakim]
+kevint; got it
17:08:31 [efelten]
Zakim, PederMagee has pmagee
17:08:35 [npdoty]
I think that will also apply to ACTION-91 (which we've largely merged together)
17:08:48 [Zakim]
+pmagee; got it
17:08:57 [ninjamarnau]
action-104 peter is not on the call
17:09:00 [enewland]
I am having trouble calling in - is anyone else?
17:09:11 [tl]
17:09:57 [ninjamarnau]
... action-112: Should not have been on the public tracker but rather on his personal to do list
17:10:05 [Zakim]
17:10:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.637.aauu
17:10:22 [tl]
17:10:30 [tl]
17:10:38 [ninjamarnau]
... New Business: announce next f2f meeting soon. We have no place to meet yet
17:10:57 [aleecia]
Next face-to-face meeting, 10 - 12 April in Washington, DC
17:11:00 [ninjamarnau]
... Now: Discussion of timeline for publishing
17:11:48 [ninjamarnau]
... editors of the compliance document are meeting tomorrow. Plan is to have a draft for review on monday.
17:12:12 [laurengelman]
laurengelman has joined #dnt
17:12:20 [ninjamarnau]
... then process as in Santa Clara. Where are parts someone cannot live with
17:12:56 [ninjamarnau]
... We will not yet answer the comments of the community group.
17:12:58 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:13:08 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aadd (5%), aleecia (47%)
17:13:14 [ninjamarnau]
... comments on timeline?
17:13:20 [aleecia]
17:13:36 [johnsimpson]
zakim, unmute me
17:13:36 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should no longer be muted
17:13:48 [aleecia]
17:13:53 [alex]
17:14:01 [jchester2_]
jchester2_ has joined #dnt
17:14:02 [ninjamarnau]
... Issue-14: Some text but no objections on the mailing list
17:14:44 [WileyS]
17:14:50 [npdoty]
17:14:56 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:15:34 [jchester2_]
17:15:47 [ninjamarnau]
Shane: One question on language was raised. Is there a contractual relationship between controller and processor?
17:15:57 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
17:16:08 [ninjamarnau]
... we need to keep in mind that we will not have 100% coverage
17:16:21 [dsinger]
I think we allowed indirect contractual relationships (a chain)
17:16:30 [fielding]
transitive contractual relationships are good enough
17:16:42 [ninjamarnau]
... in most cases there will be a contractual relationship but maybe not in all cases
17:16:54 [Zakim]
17:17:12 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:17:29 [laurengelman]
i cannot get through by phone to +1.617.761.6200, conference code TRACK (87225)
17:17:31 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
17:18:20 [aleecia]
ack jchester2_
17:18:54 [ninjamarnau]
Aleecia: We may migrate this mapping issue to another document on national law requirements.
17:19:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:19:09 [dsinger]
zakim, who is noisy?
17:19:14 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (71%), +1.301.270.aaff (34%)
17:19:27 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (62%), +1.301.270.aaff (29%)
17:20:00 [jchester2_]
thank you
17:20:03 [npdoty]
jchester2: I think 1st/3rd distinction in US may move more towards the EU model based on upcoming reports from White House and FTC
17:20:09 [tl]
Zakim, mute aaff
17:20:10 [Zakim]
+1.301.270.aaff should now be muted
17:20:14 [aleecia]
17:20:25 [aleecia]
17:20:28 [rvaneijk]
tnx !
17:20:42 [ninjamarnau]
Aleecia: Issue-101 definition of a user
17:20:48 [jchester2_]
Zakim, mute jchester2
17:20:48 [Zakim]
sorry, jchester2_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to jchester2
17:20:49 [aleecia]
A user is a human person. When user-agent software accesses online
17:20:49 [aleecia]
resources, whether or not the user understands or has specific knowledge
17:20:49 [aleecia]
of a particular request, that request is made "by" the user.
17:21:03 [dsinger]
are there other kinds of humans, or persons? :-)
17:21:21 [tl]
dsinger, There are other kinds of humans, and of persons, yes.
17:21:23 [Zakim]
17:21:37 [Zakim]
17:21:44 [laurengelman]
got it!
17:21:44 [dsinger]
"an individual human"?
17:21:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.801.830.aavv
17:22:01 [BrianTs]
Zakim, [Microsoft.a] has BrianTs
17:22:01 [Zakim]
+BrianTs; got it
17:22:04 [fielding]
I am pretty sure that monkeys surf the Internet
17:22:26 [dsriedel]
do we want to track monkeys?
17:22:33 [tl]
That's how we get the works of Shakespeare.
17:22:34 [npdoty]
no objection to "an individual human" from "a human person"
17:22:39 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: change human person to individual human.
17:22:47 [tl]
Monkeys have no expectation of privacy.
17:22:57 [Zakim]
- +1.202.637.aauu
17:22:59 [aleecia]
17:22:59 [dsriedel]
And no money
17:23:04 [ninjamarnau]
... Issue-25
17:23:21 [ninjamarnau]
... on resaerch and how research might work
17:23:50 [npdoty]
debate over "reasonable period"
17:23:56 [ninjamarnau]
... Jeff was lookung for something more specific than "reasonable period/time"
17:24:32 [ninjamarnau]
Cathy: It depends on how long the campaign lasts. We will come back to the group with a new proposal.
17:24:51 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: There may be legal retention requirements.
17:24:54 [WileyS]
Financial legal requirements can extend to 15 years
17:25:07 [WileyS]
Depends on the nature of use
17:25:08 [jchester2_]
we also need to use how the data is operationalized
17:25:18 [ninjamarnau]
... Can we tighten the wording down to something more specific?
17:25:39 [WileyS]
Disagree on defining an arbitrary timeframe here
17:25:41 [justin_]
Is this just for market research or for all the exceptions?
17:25:41 [npdoty]
ack aaff
17:25:43 [tl]
17:26:00 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaff is jchester2
17:26:00 [Zakim]
+jchester2; got it
17:26:05 [WileyS]
17:26:11 [fielding]
17:26:48 [tl]
17:27:00 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:28:10 [ninjamarnau]
WileyS: this is broader than just research. Understand Jeff's concerns. The use limitations are the crucial point. But I'm against strict retention periods.
17:28:34 [jchester2_]
if a campaign uses the research for targeting in the next campaign, which starts 6 weeks later, and designed to get users to exempt from DNT:1, it raises concerns. Which is why reaonable time limitations are needed.
17:28:55 [dsinger]
17:29:00 [ninjamarnau]
... as soon as we assign timelines for one exception there is a need to do this for all.
17:29:25 [aleecia]
"Identifiable data will be held as long as the campaign runs to provide consistent data and then all identifiers will be removed after a reasonable period."
17:29:32 [ninjamarnau]
... for frequency capping this totally depends on the campaign.
17:29:34 [npdoty]
WileyS: "particular set of principles that will lead to data minimization on frequency capping", not a specific set of dates, but tied to a campaign
17:29:35 [dsinger]
branding 'campaigns' may run for years...
17:29:36 [justin_]
Even if market research isn't going to be used for targeting, I think it violates user expectations to allow cross-site collection tied to a unique identifer for an unknown period of time when I have DNT:1 on.
17:29:38 [Zakim]
+ +44.776.849.aaww
17:29:49 [rvaneijk]
17:29:56 [npdoty]
+1 for resilience
17:29:59 [fielding]
17:30:12 [ninjamarnau]
... I want to focus more on general resilient requirements for retention.
17:30:34 [justin_]
I will continue to argue that if we only have a "data min" standard, market research should be out unless it meets the anonymous exception.
17:30:45 [jchester2_]
we should see how industry defines time period for a digital campaign. There is likely an IAB definition.
17:31:01 [WileyS]
The principle of data minimization will equally apply to all exceptions
17:31:41 [aleecia]
17:31:46 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
17:32:45 [ninjamarnau]
dsinger: A user might look at our document and get the feeling that there is no big difference to before DNT.
17:32:59 [WileyS]
There is not a set IAB campaign duration (I sit on the IAB Ad Ops Council)
17:33:10 [npdoty]
does it take several exceptions? even this single exception would allow identifiable data to be collected for an extended period, right?
17:33:33 [dsinger]
particularly, if an organization claims all exceptions, they remember 'as much as before', and without specific time limits, 'for as long as before'
17:33:34 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: We keep that in mind and need to adress this as a concern. But for the research purposes the issue is slightly different.
17:33:42 [aleecia]
ack rvaneijk
17:33:45 [justin_]
If someone has opted in to research, then you can ignore my previous comments. But I don't see why it's a specific "market research" exception --- should just be a general override.
17:33:51 [jchester2_]
So a campaign can be ongoing, a series of ever-optimized and targeted efforts.
17:34:31 [tl]
17:34:49 [tl]
17:35:19 [ninjamarnau]
Cathy: We need to get back to the group to understand the concerns about the wording regarding targeting etc.
17:35:21 [justin_]
Define "not really very easy"
17:35:26 [ksmith]
dsinger - I think thats something to consider. but data minimization would require that data from different exceptions would have to be kept separate. So, if you have frequency capping and research data, there is no additional risk to having frequency capping OR research data
17:35:41 [npdoty]
only released as aggregated data to the researcher, right?, but stored in identifiable form by whoever collects it, yes?
17:35:52 [aleecia]
Why would frequency capping and research data have anything to do with each other?
17:36:00 [ksmith]
exactly my point
17:36:01 [tl]
dsinger, I think we need to make clear that only data which is non-reversible is aggregate. The Netflix data, for instance, is not aggregate.
17:36:07 [WileyS]
Focus on "use limiations" not on "data retention periods"
17:36:13 [ninjamarnau]
rvaneijk: I see the research exception as very different to the frequency capping. Because we talk about siloed data.
17:36:14 [ksmith]
# of exemptions is not as important as defining the exemptions well
17:36:30 [dsinger]
tl - yes, I agree. once it's irretrievably aggregated, it goes off our radar
17:36:45 [jchester2_]
the ad rotation issue is connected to smart versioning and targeting of tracking ads--which is why research and frequency capping is connected in a way.
17:36:47 [dsinger]
17:37:06 [npdoty]
17:37:18 [efelten]
Re aggregate data, why isn't it sufficient to have an exception for truly anonymous data? Are we considering an exception for aggregate-but-nonanonymous data?
17:37:24 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:37:33 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: Add another action on cathy to revise the wording.
17:37:34 [Zakim]
- +1.202.346.aall
17:37:37 [jchester2_]
Can we respond to Ed's point?
17:37:45 [tl]
dsinger, But until it is truly irreversible, you're on the hook, and it's the responsibility of the data controller to make sure that aggregation is truly irreversible.
17:37:47 [aleecia]
17:38:13 [tl]
efelten, I hope that we don't believe in such a category.
17:38:18 [WileyS]
The problem with "irretrievably aggregated" is that researches continue to attack attemps to anonymize data. For Netflix they were only able to reverse engineer a very small # (sub 5) out of 10s of thousands. That is anonymous. If you push to 100%, you drive most (all) value out of data
17:38:45 [dsinger]
efelten - what is "aggregate-but-nonanonymous"?
17:38:47 [aleecia]
17:38:53 [aleecia]
17:39:36 [tl]
WileyS, The Netflix data was not anonymous, and they've paid a huge cash settlement because of it. When we talk about aggregate data, that's absolutely not it.
17:39:44 [dsinger]
maybe we mean something different by aggregated; I understand that to mean "I had 2,000 visitors from california", i.e. cumulative counts that comfortably exceed 1...
17:39:45 [ninjamarnau]
Aleecia: Issue-21 on how DNT and auditing might work. Many comments that this is far too complex
17:40:19 [ninjamarnau]
... looks like we have no support for the proposal on the mailing list
17:40:27 [tl]
WileyS, There's a lot of really valuable aggregate data. Our geo-hashed user-counts are irretrievably anonymous, but still hugely useful.
17:40:50 [alex]
17:40:54 [alex]
17:41:03 [aleecia]
ack alex
17:41:03 [ninjamarnau]
Kevin: Was regarded as interesting but not part of the spec.
17:41:30 [chapell]
17:41:32 [tl]
17:41:40 [tl]
17:41:43 [tl]
17:41:44 [ninjamarnau]
Alex: We are interested in a seperate standard to prove that you are not tracking.
17:42:20 [ninjamarnau]
... This could be a way to introduce the TPL. Using them for this issue.
17:42:36 [ninjamarnau]
Aleecia: I think this different from the auditing issue
17:42:38 [laurengelman]
i think the idea to design the spec to permit auditing for compliance is a good idea
17:42:41 [aleecia]
ack chapell
17:42:46 [tl]
17:42:58 [justin_]
Agree with chapell
17:43:06 [jchester2_]
17:43:12 [johnsimpson]
Agree with chapell
17:43:21 [ninjamarnau]
chapell: I think this is a seperate task for Trustee and others to build something around this.
17:43:23 [npdoty]
interest in a Community Group discussion around standards for auditing DNT?
17:43:35 [aleecia]
17:43:42 [aleecia]
ack jchester2_
17:44:01 [WileyS]
"so called"?
17:44:16 [fielding]
please see tracking status resource in
17:44:37 [ninjamarnau]
jchester: We should have at least a framework for auditing and not leave this to self-regulatory certificates. I would like to work on this.
17:45:02 [efelten]
dsinger, here's an example of aggregate but non-anonymous data:
17:45:03 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: Who volunteers?
17:45:13 [KevinT]
I of course will help with any others
17:45:17 [chapell]
I would like to provide input, but don't think I should lead (given that I'm skeptical of the concept)
17:45:23 [jchester2_]
I want to discuss with my NGO colleagues on this tom'w, but won't know until tom'w.
17:45:35 [alex]
I will help with proposal for Audits
17:46:03 [laurengelman]
i will help, but cannot lead
17:46:17 [npdoty]
interested in auditing discussion: KevinT, Chapell, Jchester2, Alex, Laurengelman
17:47:05 [aleecia]
17:47:09 [npdoty]
KevinT, if it looks like this discussion is useful but not right for the scope of this group, I think we could talk about alternate venues
17:47:10 [Zakim]
17:47:18 [aleecia]
17:47:21 [tl]
efelten, I have only glanced, but I am confused as to how that paper covers aggregate data?
17:47:40 [fielding]
17:47:47 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: Issue-45 on making a public statement on DNT
17:47:48 [Zakim]
17:47:59 [KevinT]
17:48:01 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:48:01 [efelten]
tl, let's take that discussion offline
17:48:11 [justin_]
Can you describe, fielding?
17:48:18 [Zakim]
17:48:23 [fielding]
17:48:45 [tl]
17:48:49 [johnsimpson]
17:48:56 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:49:30 [ninjamarnau]
fielding: tracking status section that I added to the TPE spec solves this by requiring a well known resource. Action-115
17:49:32 [aleecia]
ack johnsimpson
17:50:41 [npdoty]
17:50:44 [WileyS]
+1 for Jonathan's approach - if TPE requires forced response, then I disagree
17:50:54 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:50:55 [WileyS]
responses should be "SHOULD", not "MUST"
17:50:55 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: regardless of the mechanism we need to align the the two specs.
17:51:24 [laurengelman]
responses should be "MUST" , not "SHOULD" :)
17:51:43 [ninjamarnau]
+1 on the MUST :)
17:51:56 [npdoty]
I think Jonathan's text is compatible with any of our conclusions on the TPE mechanism
17:52:28 [WileyS]
Understood those that don't have to implement DNT feel strongly about a MUST :-)
17:52:39 [fielding]
npdoty, his last sentence contradicts TPE draft
17:52:50 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: We have been talking about first parties.
17:52:59 [laurengelman]
:) i did get that impression
17:53:30 [ninjamarnau]
... i like to suggest that we go back to jonathan and tom's proposal.
17:53:31 [npdoty]
fielding, I see, by being weaker than one proposal for the technical mechanism
17:53:48 [ninjamarnau]
... work out user expectations around the edges of "branding"
17:53:49 [fielding]
WileyS, I can't see a reason why the well-known resource would be anything other than MUST
17:54:14 [tl]
17:54:25 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:54:28 [fielding]
17:54:40 [ninjamarnau]
... We have a debate right now on if and how information can be shared across brands.
17:54:44 [aleecia]
This is conceptual, would be asking Tom & Jonathan to revise
17:54:47 [ninjamarnau]
... Comments?
17:54:48 [WileyS]
Roy - I'm leaning toward the well known location as a MUST - let me think about it a bit more
17:55:15 [johnsimpson]
explain the concept some more, please, Aleecia
17:55:55 [aleecia]
17:56:14 [npdoty]
specifically 1st/3rd party question:
17:56:38 [npdoty]
sorry, rather
17:57:01 [ninjamarnau]
... Concerns were that asking companies to understand user expectations is too complicated.
17:57:49 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
17:58:20 [npdoty]
17:58:21 [justin_]
I'm sorry, you have lost me
17:58:27 [ninjamarnau]
... Tossing that out to see reactions.
17:58:30 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:58:38 [jchester2_]
17:58:58 [amyc]
not sure i understand this proposal
17:59:08 [ninjamarnau]
ndoty: In Brussels we were rather talking about services than brands
17:59:17 [Zakim]
17:59:21 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has left #dnt
17:59:35 [justin_]
How are these separate issues? If we limit a party to a common service/individual brand, then corporate ownership becomes irrelevant, yes?
17:59:50 [amyc]
agree justin
17:59:54 [ksmith]
I think that clarifies the issues somewhat, but I am not sure it will help us resolve the issue. I am afraid it will just move the discussion to a different issue #. But I am willing to try
18:00:05 [Zakim]
18:00:12 [aleecia]
18:00:14 [ninjamarnau]
... not a huge distinction there. But may make things more clear.
18:00:20 [aleecia]
ack jchester2_
18:00:30 [WileyS]
Disagree with this limitation and will force many multi-brand companies millions of dollars in either re-branding or in technical solutions to separate commonly owned data
18:00:38 [Zakim]
- +1.617.733.aakk
18:00:51 [npdoty]
WileyS, I don't think Aleecia has yet proposed a specific limitation
18:01:00 [amyc]
18:01:09 [ninjamarnau]
jchester: Support the service idea.
18:01:19 [WileyS]
So we have the following levels: sub-domain, domain, service, brand, corp affiliation
18:01:23 [npdoty]
ack amyc
18:01:25 [aleecia]
We still retain the issue of discoverability v. branding v. how we do multi-brand
18:01:45 [aleecia]
I'm suggesting we open a new issue on that
18:02:08 [WileyS]
"easily discoverable" feels like the appropriate compromise between GLBA "Affiliate Stance" versus strict "domain" stance.
18:02:29 [johnsimpson]
18:02:35 [ninjamarnau]
amyc: Sorry, I did not get that
18:02:39 [aleecia]
ack johnsimpson
18:02:52 [justin_]
Easily discoverable is effectively the same as GLBA. Now "common branding" is a compromise!
18:03:35 [ninjamarnau]
johnsimpson: If we break it down to brands and services, we make first parties a lot smaller than they really are.
18:03:38 [amyc]
Ninja, making point that creating sub issue of brand by brand (or service by service) not a fruitful direciton to move things forward
18:03:54 [WileyS]
Justin, disagree, I can send you to many banking sites and I'll challenge you to figure out who the common owner is. Versus, go to ESPN and click on the Privacy link - IMMEDIATELY apparent this is a Disney company.
18:04:06 [amyc]
support Tom's recommendation that alternative first party definition be proposed, rather than continuing to slice and dice
18:04:45 [justin_]
Yeah, but NO ONE goes to that privacy link WileyS
18:04:59 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: We have moved forward on the direction that we can have two or mor first parties on one site.
18:05:13 [jchester2_]
I volunteer to work on text
18:05:47 [WileyS]
Justin_, disagree - and absolute statements don't help advance the conversation ("NO ONE")
18:05:58 [ninjamarnau]
... And second, it is difficult for users to find out which brands belong to one "party" if they are not crossbranded
18:06:33 [WileyS]
Can we have this be about common ownership?
18:06:48 [WileyS]
Common ownership + easily discoverable
18:06:55 [justin_]
WileyS, fine, 0.2%? The fact that the number is miniscule is relevant.
18:06:56 [aleecia]
18:07:17 [WileyS]
The fact the information is easily accessible to those that actually care is more relevant
18:07:49 [vincent_]
18:07:58 [aleecia]
ack vincent_
18:08:15 [laurengelman]
How does this relate to Action-99, David Singer's recent proposal?
18:08:25 [Zakim]
- +44.776.849.aaww
18:08:57 [Zakim]
- +1.917.934.aagg
18:09:02 [ninjamarnau]
aleecia: To answer laurengelman - this will be a competing proposal.
18:09:04 [tl]
18:09:04 [amyc]
18:09:13 [npdoty]
ack tl
18:10:12 [npdoty]
"counter-proposal and feature trade across them"
18:10:19 [aleecia]
ack amyc
18:10:26 [npdoty]
I like the concept of "feature trade" :)
18:10:52 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
18:11:06 [npdoty]
amyc: to show external progress, might be better to have two complete proposals rather than subdividing
18:11:08 [Zakim]
- +1.202.835.aaqq
18:11:13 [tl]
18:11:16 [jchester2_]
I think your suggestion is good one
18:11:22 [aleecia]
ack tl
18:11:34 [justin_]
WileyS, the point of DNT is to offer an easy way to stop cross-site tracking. If there's going to cross-site tracking that happens despite the instruction, that should be obvious, I shouldn't have to look at each site's privacy policy to see where my data might go.
18:11:46 [npdoty]
tl: there are some that would like your class of proposals, and I would like to see text
18:12:15 [jchester2_]
can you summarize their proposal again?
18:12:49 [rvaneijk]
WileyS, DNT is to offer a granular dialogue under the hood of the browser. Visiting a pricacy policy is orthogonal to that.
18:12:56 [jchester2_]
I volunteer to draft a response
18:12:59 [npdoty]
aleecia: for proposal from tom and jonathan around user expectations for brands owned by a company. does someone volunteer to draft a response?
18:13:28 [laurengelman]
i will help jeff
18:13:38 [jchester2_]
I need to review Jonathan and Tom's proposal, to see where I agree and need to clarify--based on my interests
18:14:07 [fielding]
To be clear, I think the cross-site (or cross-service) discussion applies to all of this text, not just the branding question.
18:14:16 [npdoty]
action: chester to draft a response to 1st/3rd proposal (with Lauren)
18:14:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-123 - Draft a response to 1st/3rd proposal (with Lauren) [on Jeffrey Chester - due 2012-02-22].
18:14:31 [Zakim]
18:14:34 [WileyS]
justin_, I disagree as user education will still need to surround DNT at launch to cover SCOPE OF APPLICATION (exceptions, site-specific exceptions, and common ownership/branding, etc.). If users care, they can easily find the information. Forcing more "junk" on pages to cover off for the very few users who care doesn't feel proportionate to the problem attempting to be solved.
18:14:43 [npdoty]
action: colando to draft an alternate 1st/3rd proposal (with Shane and Ted)
18:14:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-124 - Draft an alternate 1st/3rd proposal (with Shane and Ted) [on Amy Colando - due 2012-02-22].
18:15:08 [jchester2_]
Each service has different A/B testing, landing page optimization approaches, etc. Users don't know this
18:15:30 [WileyS]
Those are typically 1st party Jeff
18:15:36 [Zakim]
- +1.202.637.aaoo
18:15:38 [Zakim]
18:15:38 [Zakim]
18:15:39 [Zakim]
- +1.801.830.aavv
18:15:39 [Zakim]
- +1.646.666.aass
18:15:40 [Zakim]
18:15:40 [Zakim]
- +1.408.349.aatt
18:15:42 [Zakim]
18:15:43 [Zakim]
18:15:45 [ksmith]
ksmith has left #DNT
18:15:45 [Zakim]
- +1.646.654.aahh
18:15:46 [jchester2_]
That's why we need to define servive versus brand, etc.
18:15:47 [Zakim]
18:15:49 [Zakim]
18:15:51 [npdoty]
aleecia: adjourned for this week
18:15:52 [Zakim]
18:15:53 [Zakim]
- +1.206.658.aann
18:15:55 [Zakim]
18:15:57 [Zakim]
18:15:59 [Zakim]
18:16:02 [Zakim]
- +1.206.369.aamm
18:16:03 [Zakim]
18:16:05 [Zakim]
18:16:07 [Zakim]
18:16:09 [Zakim]
18:16:12 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #DNT
18:16:19 [Zakim]
18:16:21 [Zakim]
- +1.202.530.aaii
18:17:22 [Zakim]
18:17:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
18:17:39 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.674.aaaa, tl, +49.721.913.74.aabb, aleecia, dsriedel, rvaneijk, +1.202.326.aacc, efelten, npdoty, ninjamarnau, +1.813.366.aadd,
18:17:42 [Zakim]
... +1.202.326.aaee, +1.301.270.aaff, johnsimpson, +1.917.934.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, sidstamm, +1.202.530.aaii, +1.415.520.aajj, dsinger, aadd, +1.617.733.aakk, +1.202.346.aall,
18:17:42 [Zakim]
... +1.206.369.aamm, +1.206.658.aann, +1.202.637.aaoo, +1.714.852.aapp, +1.202.835.aaqq, Helena, +1.202.326.aarr, +1.646.666.aass, +1.408.349.aatt, fielding, cOlsen, kevint,
18:17:42 [Zakim]
... pmagee, +1.202.637.aauu, [Microsoft], +1.801.830.aavv, BrianTs, jchester2, +44.776.849.aaww
18:18:06 [npdoty]
trackbot, end meeting
18:18:06 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:18:06 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.674.aaaa, tl, +49.721.913.74.aabb, aleecia, dsriedel, rvaneijk, +1.202.326.aacc, efelten, npdoty, ninjamarnau, +1.813.366.aadd,
18:18:09 [Zakim]
... +1.202.326.aaee, +1.301.270.aaff, johnsimpson, +1.917.934.aagg, +1.646.654.aahh, sidstamm, +1.202.530.aaii, +1.415.520.aajj, dsinger, aadd, +1.617.733.aakk, +1.202.346.aall,
18:18:09 [Zakim]
... +1.206.369.aamm, +1.206.658.aann, +1.202.637.aaoo, +1.714.852.aapp, +1.202.835.aaqq, Helena, +1.202.326.aarr, +1.646.666.aass, +1.408.349.aatt, fielding, cOlsen, kevint,
18:18:09 [Zakim]
... pmagee, +1.202.637.aauu, [Microsoft], +1.801.830.aavv, BrianTs, jchester2, +44.776.849.aaww
18:18:14 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:18:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:18:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:18:15 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
18:18:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: chester to draft a response to 1st/3rd proposal (with Lauren) [1]
18:18:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:18:15 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: colando to draft an alternate 1st/3rd proposal (with Shane and Ted) [2]
18:18:15 [RRSAgent]
recorded in