IRC log of dnt on 2013-04-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:24:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:24:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:24:44 [tlr]
rrsagent, make record public
15:24:50 [tlr]
Meeting: TPWG extra call
15:24:53 [tlr]
Chair: swire
15:24:58 [tlr]
zakim, this will be track
15:24:58 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
15:29:33 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:44:55 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:48:31 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:54:26 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:55:13 [paulohm]
paulohm has joined #dnt
15:55:15 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
15:56:17 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
15:56:27 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
15:56:52 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:56:57 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
15:56:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were
15:57:14 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
15:57:19 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
15:57:30 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:57:37 [Zakim]
15:57:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.258.aaaa - is perhaps efelten?
15:57:47 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
15:57:49 [efelten]
Zakim, aaaa is efelten
15:57:49 [Zakim]
sorry, efelten, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:57:51 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
15:57:59 [Zakim]
15:58:00 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:58:11 [Zakim]
15:58:14 [moneill2]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:58:14 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
15:58:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aabb - is perhaps [FTC]?
15:58:22 [paulohm]
Zakim, aabb is paulohm
15:58:22 [Zakim]
sorry, paulohm, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
15:58:30 [npdoty]
Zakim, [FTC] has paulohm
15:58:30 [Zakim]
+paulohm; got it
15:58:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.999.aacc
15:58:39 [Zakim]
15:58:41 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
15:58:46 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:58:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.370.aadd
15:59:15 [Zakim]
15:59:18 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
15:59:18 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
15:59:26 [PaulGlist]
PaulGlist has joined #dnt
15:59:28 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
15:59:29 [Yianni]
Yianni has joined #DNT
15:59:31 [Zakim]
15:59:34 [Zakim]
15:59:43 [Zakim]
15:59:46 [rigo]
zakim, code/
15:59:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'code/', rigo
15:59:47 [Zakim]
15:59:50 [rigo]
zakim, code?
15:59:50 [Zakim]
the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, rigo
15:59:56 [Zakim]
15:59:56 [Yianni]
Zakim, mute me
15:59:56 [Zakim]
Yianni should now be muted
15:59:57 [Zakim]
+ +52661100aaee
15:59:57 [Zakim]
16:00:00 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please make logs public
16:00:05 [Zakim]
16:00:07 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:00:08 [Zakim]
16:00:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.827.aaff
16:00:10 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:00:18 [tlr]
zakim, Timbl is temporarily tlr
16:00:18 [Zakim]
+tlr; got it
16:00:19 [JHobaugh]
JHobaugh has joined #dnt
16:00:21 [Zakim]
16:00:22 [tlr]
zakim, tlr has wseltzer
16:00:22 [Zakim]
+wseltzer; got it
16:00:24 [Zakim]
16:00:26 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:00:30 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:00:32 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
16:00:32 [Zakim]
16:00:32 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:00:33 [Chris_IAB]
just joined the call
16:00:34 [Zakim]
16:00:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.471.aagg
16:00:43 [Zakim]
16:00:46 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:00:46 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:00:48 [Zakim]
- +1.415.999.aacc
16:00:55 [dwainberg]
zakim, aaff is dwainberg
16:00:55 [Zakim]
+dwainberg; got it
16:00:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.846.aahh
16:00:59 [Zakim]
16:01:01 [Zakim]
16:01:13 [Zakim]
16:01:19 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:01:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.404.385.aaii - is perhaps peterswire?
16:01:37 [Zakim]
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:01:40 [magee2023263538]
magee2023263538 has joined #dnt
16:01:40 [dsinger]
16:01:48 [Wileys]
Wileys has joined #dnt
16:01:53 [rigo]
zakim, Bim is really Rigo
16:01:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.344.aajj
16:01:54 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:55 [Zakim]
+Rigo; got it
16:01:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Amy_Colando, efelten?, JeffWilson, moneill2, [FTC]?, Fielding, +1.703.370.aadd, [Mozilla], npdoty, dsinger, Yianni (muted), Joanne, Peder_Magee, +52661100aaee,
16:01:55 [Zakim]
... johnsimpson, tlr, rvaneijk, dwainberg, SusanIsrael, BillS, prestia, [CDT], +1.415.471.aagg, jchester2 (muted), +1.917.846.aahh, BerinSzoka, Rigo, Dan_Auerbach, peterswire?,
16:01:55 [Zakim]
... hwest, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.344.aajj (muted)
16:01:56 [Zakim]
tlr has wseltzer
16:01:56 [Zakim]
[FTC] has paulohm
16:01:56 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:01:58 [peterswire]
peterswire has joined #dnt
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.aakk
16:02:06 [Chris_IAB]
I am 661-100-xxxx
16:02:07 [Zakim]
16:02:15 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:02:16 [Zakim]
16:02:16 [Marc_]
Marc_ has joined #dnt
16:02:19 [efelten]
Zakim, efelten? is really efelten
16:02:19 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
16:02:23 [npdoty]
scribenick: hwest
16:02:26 [Richard_comScore]
Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:02:26 [Zakim]
16:02:31 [prestia]
prestia has joined #dnt
16:02:39 [dsinger]
zakim, +52661100aaee is chris_IAB
16:02:39 [Zakim]
+chris_IAB; got it
16:02:40 [Marc_]
202 344 4272 is Marc
16:02:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.239.aall
16:02:55 [Zakim]
16:03:10 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
16:03:12 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
16:03:13 [dsinger]
zakim, aajj is Marc
16:03:13 [Zakim]
+Marc; got it
16:03:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.370.aamm
16:03:24 [robsherman]
zakim, aamm is robsherman
16:03:25 [Zakim]
+robsherman; got it
16:03:36 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Amy_Colando, efelten, JeffWilson, moneill2, [FTC]?, Fielding, +1.703.370.aadd, [Mozilla], npdoty, dsinger, Yianni (muted), Joanne, Peder_Magee, chris_IAB,
16:03:38 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:40 [Zakim]
... johnsimpson, tlr, rvaneijk, dwainberg, SusanIsrael, BillS, prestia, [CDT], +1.415.471.aagg, jchester2 (muted), +1.917.846.aahh, BerinSzoka, Rigo, Dan_Auerbach, peterswire?,
16:03:40 [Zakim]
... hwest, Chris_Pedigo, Marc, +1.202.587.aakk, WaltM_Comcast, RichardWeaver, Chapell, +1.908.239.aall, WileyS, robsherman
16:03:40 [Zakim]
tlr has wseltzer
16:03:40 [Zakim]
[FTC] has paulohm
16:03:40 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:03:47 [npdoty]
scribenick: hwest
16:03:56 [David_MacMillan]
David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:04:02 [Zakim]
16:04:03 [hwest]
peterswire: A doc was sent around, draft framework
16:04:17 [hwest]
... Face to face next Monday, starts noon at Apple's facilities
16:04:20 [Zakim]
16:04:22 [hwest]
... We will have the normal Wednesday call
16:04:26 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
16:04:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.214.aann
16:04:31 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:04:32 [hwest]
... Following up on today
16:04:43 [Zakim]
16:04:46 [Zakim]
16:04:50 [hwest]
... This document reflects a need to have a list of issues we expect to discuss
16:04:51 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:04:51 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:04:52 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:04:55 [adrianba]
zakim, mute me
16:04:55 [Zakim]
adrianba should now be muted
16:04:55 [bryan]
zakim, aann is bryan
16:04:56 [Zakim]
+bryan; got it
16:05:09 [hwest]
... it is for discussion, rather than reflecting an agreement
16:05:16 [hwest]
... It's a path for discussion
16:05:25 [hwest]
... This is informed by DAA work, so Stu will explain
16:05:53 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:06:02 [hwest]
Stu: As everyone knows, we've been trying to figure out what DNT will mean going forward and how it relates to the DAA process, figure out a way to honor White House comittment while addressing concerns from stakeholders
16:06:04 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Mozilla] (3%)
16:06:10 [Zakim]
16:06:16 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:06:20 [hwest]
... Occurs to me that there are a couple issues in particular we need to make progress on
16:06:24 [BillScannell]
BillScannell has joined #dnt
16:06:26 [Zakim]
16:06:33 [hwest]
... Would help the DAA in moving forward
16:06:49 [Zakim]
16:07:13 [hwest]
... In the exceptions category (DAA terminology) narrow the exceptions [our term is permitted uses]
16:07:25 [hwest]
... We're committed to figuring out a process that would do that
16:07:35 [hwest]
... The other item is how to ensure that it is the consumer that makes the choice
16:07:52 [hwest]
... Potential tech and legal avenues there
16:08:04 [hwest]
... Want to ensure that the consumer is makign the choice
16:08:25 [hwest]
... whether that's an entity choosing to turn it on or off rather than the consumer
16:08:54 [hwest]
... From the DAA perspective, we can commit to talking through those issues
16:09:21 [hwest]
peterswire: Can you walk through the document a little bit?
16:10:07 [hwest]
Stu: Whatever makes sense.
16:10:09 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
16:10:18 [Thomas_Schauf]
Thomas_Schauf has joined #dnt
16:10:45 [Zakim]
16:10:52 [hwest]
peterswire: Best if you can briefly go through, then we can clarify meaning.
16:11:07 [hwest]
Stu: Number 1 - DNT would be honored by third partiesthat collect tracking data, and these third parties would not collect tracking data on any browser where the consumer has activated the DNT functionality. Third parties could still collect data for the narrow set of permitted uses. For DNT:1 users, if an entity has a permitted basis for collection of such information, the entity can use the data only for the permitted uses.
16:12:03 [hwest]
... I knwo there's been a concern that if data was collected for a permitted use it shouldn't be reused for non permitted uses.
16:12:10 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:12:10 [hwest]
... 2 - Non-compliance with DNT would be a DAA violation.
16:12:37 [hwest]
... This is important, 19 cases, company representations in respect to these principles are in most cases enforcable by the FTC.
16:12:38 [Zakim]
+ +49.172.147.aaoo
16:12:50 [hwest]
... W3C isn't self-regulatory, this would have the DAA help enforce.
16:12:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:13:01 [hwest]
... 3 - The DAA would modify its current codes, notably including the current “market research” and “product development” exceptions to collection limits, including evaluation of potential retention limitation.
16:13:02 [rigo]
zakim, aaoo is schunter
16:13:02 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:13:04 [justin]
If you say you're following the W3C standard, that's FTC enforceable. FWIW.
16:13:05 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Mozilla] (21%), Brooks (4%)
16:13:08 [Zakim]
16:13:09 [rigo]
zakim, mute schunter
16:13:10 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:13:24 [hwest]
... As we further evaluate that, would narrow unique IDs or not use them at all if that's possible.
16:13:32 [sidstamm]
Zakim, mute me
16:13:32 [Zakim]
sorry, sidstamm, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:13:52 [hwest]
... Retention limitations may be possible, length probably differs on each one, but in advance of the meeting I think there's a lot of work there.
16:14:00 [hwest]
... 4 - For DNT:1 users, there would be no persistent IDs if there is not a permitted use. The use of persistent IDs for permitted uses would be limited to the extent practical, and any such persistent IDs would be used only for any such permitted use. There would be of a broader study or effort to address data hygiene in the advertising eco-system, with the aim of identifying feasible, privacy-protective practices over time.
16:14:29 [hwest]
... I know that's very important for the consumer community, very much in the spirit of the White House agreement. Will obviously need to hear from stakeholders here.
16:14:44 [moneill2]
I like it so far
16:14:56 [johnsimpson]
16:14:57 [jmayer]
16:15:10 [hwest]
... We have to evaluate what the need is under those permitted uses, and what's practical now and in the future, to get away from unique IDs
16:15:22 [jmayer]
"I'm certainly not committing at all that we can get there... that there's no unique ID..."
16:15:24 [hwest]
... Not committing that we can get there, but will evaluate in good faith
16:15:33 [hwest]
... 5 - We would determine a way to have the DAA codes become a way for compliance with the W3C syntax. Thus, the DAA standard with the above modifications would be the working standard for companies. Adapt the W3C standard to conform to this approach. DAA would support and enforce against that.
16:15:35 [dan_auerbach]
dan_auerbach has joined #dnt
16:15:40 [moneill2]
limited duration cookies would work
16:15:53 [johnsimpson]
16:16:08 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:16:08 [hwest]
... Would be modifying the code that they are already following. All of these things obviously require process.
16:16:26 [hwest]
... This harmonizes so that there's one, enforceable, standard.
16:16:40 [moneill2]
as long as 1st party cookies cannot be shared with third-parties
16:17:01 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:17:03 [hwest]
... The changes to the code and the standard, if we're able to get there, would not be turned around later; good faith.
16:17:06 [npdoty]
... harmonize these so it's one standard that's enforceable, rather than a panoply
16:17:43 [hwest]
... Tenant of the dialog for the last couple years is that the default would be off by choice, we understand the various decisions and discussions of browser makers.
16:17:48 [tlr]
16:18:09 [hwest]
... For this to be workable for the business community and provides consumers choice we'd want to make sure the setting is consistent, standard, and off.
16:18:16 [hwest]
... Done through browsers, not user agents.
16:18:46 [hwest]
... Consumers who use the major browsers under this standard would all have the ability to make this choice. UAs we leave for another day.
16:18:49 [efelten]
Non-browser UAs would be prohibited from following the standard?
16:18:58 [hwest]
... This is the way to get something concrete and achievable now.
16:19:03 [npdoty]
... if we're all serious about this ... browsers, which is how content is viewed .. other user agents leave for another day
16:19:20 [hwest]
... Main theme is DNT flag not being set by someone without consumer choice.
16:19:24 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:19:33 [hwest]
So UAs would be prohibited from setting browser flag.
16:19:35 [moneill2]
api to set DNT from certificated webpage (with authentication key sent in DNT header)?
16:19:44 [hwest]
... b. The browser choice setting would be available in the browser settings panel, accessible from the traditional browser settings—not through an installation process or other similar mechanism.
16:19:45 [sidstamm]
efelten, that's what I understand from reading the pdf
16:19:46 [justin]
efelten, Yes, 6(a) seems to say that non-browsers can't send DNT signals
16:20:06 [hwest]
... This is my understanding of what has been discussed at W3C. Central to White House announcement, from DAA perspective.
16:20:11 [hwest]
... c. Develop technological measures that, together with non-technological measures, greatly reduce the risk that anyone other than consumers are setting the choice. Develop a process on how to achieve this in a short time frame (3 months).
16:21:03 [hwest]
... Point is that it's not a year process, this has to be achievable. W3C should figure out the various strains of how you do that and put the people who configure those things off to do that. As a lawyer, I'm not in a good place to figure that out.
16:21:05 [bryan]
we need to understand clearly what is meant by "the risk that anyone other than consumers are setting the choice" - who is the consumer, and who may be acting on their behalf
16:21:17 [hwest]
... d. Brief and neutral description of the impact of turning the setting on. The browser choice setting would communicate the following to consumers:
16:21:28 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
16:21:36 [hwest]
.. Another tenet of the White House announcement.
16:21:46 [hwest]
... i. The fact that if the browser choice setting is activated it limits collection and use of web viewing data for certain advertising and other purposes; ii. The fact that when the browser setting is activated some data may still be collected and used for certain purposes and a description of such purposes; and
16:21:54 [hwest]
... iii. The fact that if a consumer affirmatively allows a particular business to collect and use information about web viewing activities that the activating the setting will not limit collection and use from such entity.
16:22:35 [hwest]
... Main purpose of that is be clear with consumers what is actually happening and not happening. Construct of DNT to some consumers would have a different meaning due to interpretation.
16:23:01 [hwest]
... Goal isn't to have some long page or persuasion on either side, but to neutrally lay out those three bullets in user-friendly language.
16:23:08 [johnsimpson]
16:23:37 [hwest]
peterswire: Thank you for that explanation.
16:23:49 [hwest]
... For today, many people will have different reactions, questions on IRC.
16:24:15 [johnsimpson]
16:24:39 [justin]
16:24:54 [hwest]
... In trying to think about how to be productive today, I thought we should do clarifying questions about the words here. Folks may want changes, but let us go through the document for clarifications and frame it that way
16:25:16 [Zakim]
- +1.917.846.aahh
16:25:18 [hwest]
... So first, clarifying questions on what it means rather than overall statements.
16:25:51 [hwest]
jmayer: Two questions about the doc. The first is, who does this document represent? Whose position does it represent?
16:25:54 [WaltM_Comcast]
WaltM_Comcast has joined #DNT
16:26:15 [hwest]
... Second question, sense of the delta here. I think I have an understanding of what the proposal was, but I don't have a great understanding of how this differs from what we've heard before.
16:26:53 [hwest]
Stu: The document itself was derived primarily yesterday resulting from a conversation I had with Peter, this hasn't been approved by the DAA as a whole though I am speaking on their behalf today.
16:26:57 [jpolonet3]
jpolonet3 has joined #DNT
16:27:18 [hwest]
... I'm sure I'll get questions and comments on it from DAA members now and later.
16:27:26 [johnsimpson]
16:27:32 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
16:27:38 [justin]
ack jmayer
16:27:38 [npdoty]
ack jmayer
16:27:39 [hwest]
... The timing is just because of the timing of our conversation this weekend
16:27:58 [hwest]
... Recognizing that there's a deadline coming up in a couple months, so I suggested some items to focus on.
16:28:18 [hwest]
jmayer: So this reflects your position?
16:28:27 [hwest]
Stu: Yes, this reflects my thoughts on a path forward.
16:28:38 [hwest]
... This is a means for discussion, rather than a final document by any means.
16:28:56 [hwest]
... Could solve some open items here, just represents my view of a constructive path forward.
16:29:05 [dwainberg]
I'm super curious now which of the advocates, if any, have been in on this
16:29:21 [peterswire]
16:29:36 [hwest]
... Delta from previous things include the market research and product development narrowing
16:29:44 [hwest]
... And look again at the other DAA exceptions
16:29:58 [hwest]
... Which is, I think, a narrower list than the list discussed at W3C/
16:29:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.846.aapp
16:30:15 [dsinger]
hm, "DAA exception" is like "W3C permission"?
16:30:35 [hwest]
... Also recognition that unique IDs wouldn't be used for DNT:1, try to limit that for permitted uses
16:30:38 [npdoty]
like "permitted use", I think, yes, dsinger
16:30:53 [hwest]
... There will be questions within the business community, but there's a logic there that makes sense to pursue
16:31:15 [hwest]
... Further nail down the hygiene in the advertising ecosystem
16:32:01 [hwest]
... I haven't been part of the W3C discussions back and forth, my sense is that every idea under the sun has been floated, looking for a path forward.
16:32:26 [hwest]
... I know that DAA text has been suggested as part of the W3C text, but haven't suggested bringing the two together this way.
16:32:54 [hwest]
peterswire: Language in 1 saying that data collected for a permitted use may only be used for permitted use
16:33:09 [peterswire]
16:33:13 [Zakim]
16:33:16 [hwest]
Stu: That's always been what's intended in the DAA code, but some don't believe that. Should help clarify.
16:33:16 [npdoty]
it sounds like there's a delta from the DAA code, based particularly on exceptions/permitted uses around market research / product development and perhaps purpose limitation/identifiers
16:33:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.614.aaqq
16:33:29 [johnsimpson]
16:33:34 [adrianba]
zakim, aaqq is me
16:33:34 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:33:35 [npdoty]
but there might also be an interesting delta from the current compliance spec
16:33:42 [adrianba]
zakim, mute me
16:33:42 [Zakim]
adrianba should now be muted
16:33:47 [hwest]
justin: A couple clarifying questions. How does this intersect with cookie controls? Limitations on the types of UIDs that can be used, or fingerprint technologies?
16:33:59 [rvaneijk]
16:34:00 [hwest]
... Would you require browsers to turn on third party cookies as part of default settings?
16:34:16 [npdoty]
ack justin
16:34:29 [hwest]
... And in the Amsterdam meeting, DAA folks had suggested adding marketing or advertising as a permitted use, is that on the table? Or just the existing permitted uses int he W3C document?
16:34:43 [johnsimpson]
16:34:45 [peterswire]
16:34:57 [jmayer]
I'm still uncertain about how this differs from previous advertising industry proposals within the W3C process. The substance is borrowed entirely from the DAA.
16:34:58 [npdoty]
I think the delta from our current documents would be mostly on the UA restriction side?
16:35:36 [hwest]
Stu: As I understand, marketing permitted use came up as industry, who believes they create tremendous value here, this is an area that everyone on all sides is passionate about. Specifically, marketing and advertising would not be a DAA exception in this path.
16:35:37 [justin]
Marketing and advertising NOT proposed as exceptions --- ok, that's whatI thought.
16:35:39 [jmayer]
Nick, that seems a fair characterization. Roughly half of this proposal is about user agent restrictions, I would note.
16:35:40 [moneill2]
16:35:43 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:36:01 [johnsimpson]
16:36:02 [npdoty]
... part of a heated discussion, to answer, no, marketing and advertising wouldn't be exceptions
16:36:03 [hwest]
Stu: To the first question, cookie controls, that's an area that has caused a lot of concern in the business community particularly.
16:36:52 [hwest]
... I think the term you used, would we 'require' browsers to turn on by default, we wouldn't require anything. DAA sstandard would have the defaults as described. Browsers choose at their own discretion, we would hope that browsers would choose the standard.
16:37:15 [Zakim]
16:37:21 [Zakim]
16:37:43 [hwest]
... I guess the question would be what is permitted under DAA or W3C; if the current Safari browser blocks cookies, so long as we're providing the transparency and uniform choice of the DAA princoples, would not be a violation to use a different technology if the cookies are blocked.
16:38:11 [hwest]
... If Apple adopted these tools, and separately had a block cookies setting, other technologies could be used as long as they provided choice.
16:38:30 [hwest]
... If consumer set a DNT flag, then no technology could be used.
16:38:50 [npdoty]
... other technologies [fingerprinting?] could be used, if a standard choice was presented and cookies were being blocked
16:38:52 [justin]
OK, so what I think Stu is saying: if your browser blocks cookies by default but DNT is only in browser settings, DAA would require members to honor browser's DNT instruction
16:38:56 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:39:00 [justin]
16:39:09 [npdoty]
ack rvaneijk
16:39:10 [hwest]
... Cookies can already be blocked today, but folks want to address all technologies. DAA system has always been tech neutral. If DNT:1 is on every browser, that should work regardless of tech.
16:39:26 [hwest]
rvaneijk: Would this mean opt out cookies are redundant? If not, what trumps/
16:39:45 [hwest]
Stu: First question, we don't have any plans to phase out opt out cookies, it's a system that works.
16:39:55 [peterswire]
16:39:57 [npdoty]
we currently have text in the Compliance spec on how to handle cases where opt-out cookies and DNT signals are present simultaneously
16:39:58 [jmayer]
If I understand correctly, Stu's position is that third parties would be able to circumvent browser technical countermeasures under this new proposal.
16:40:21 [npdoty]
16:40:30 [hwest]
... Icons give transparency and lead to that, would not be good to remove 2 million opt out cookies set through the DAA. Our intention is that this would be complementary to the DAA program.
16:40:50 [justin]
jmayer, That's not explicitly in the proposal, but I'm not sure it's new either way.
16:40:53 [Mike_Zaneis]
@Justin I'm not sure that's what Stu said regarding cookie blocking defaults.
16:41:08 [hwest]
... Second question, haven't given it a lot of thought, only situation where there's conflict is DNT is unset and cookie opt out is set (or vice versa) and the answer would have to be that if either is set, then they are opted out.
16:41:09 [npdoty]
jmayer, I interpreted that as saying that it wouldn't be a DAA violation to circumvent cookie blocking with other techniques if a service supported DNT
16:41:27 [sidstamm]
I heard what npdoty heard here, jmayer
16:41:28 [hwest]
... That's something worthy of further discussion. This is an additional tool, not limiting.
16:41:29 [peterswire]
16:41:30 [npdoty]
ack justin
16:41:41 [rigo]
I think jmayer is not reflecting it correctly. It just means that outside DNT we are still in arms race
16:42:06 [hwest]
justin: Choice would only be in browser settings, presenting on installation is invalid, why is that?
16:42:15 [sidstamm]
are "setup wizards" allowed to set DNT?
16:42:20 [jmayer]
Nick and Sid, since a company is required to honor Do Not Track, yes, both would happen. But note that DNT and countermeasures might have very different impacts. In particular, DNT might result in continued collection of a user's browsing history.
16:42:29 [justin]
sidstamm, No, per 6b.
16:42:38 [sidstamm]
I don't think it's clear
16:42:39 [npdoty]
... mentioned that was part of the White House agreement
16:42:54 [hwest]
Stu: We need a consistency, we need it in one place, there's a lot of concern that providing it at install is essentially an opt in, the way it can be presented. Could be encouraging of opt outs. Strong concern from business community
16:43:00 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:43:12 [justin]
sidstamm, Well, Stu is clarfifying that right now :)
16:43:16 [hwest]
... that we shouldn't be encouraging opt outs from responsible players. Trying to make it neutral, rather than favor one way or the other.
16:43:36 [sidstamm]
justin, I think there's a difference between "preselection" in a wizard (hidden, nonobvious) and forcing the question by requiring a yes/no to the question on setup
16:43:46 [jmayer]
I think this is what was just said, attempting to capture accurately: "We think, as a matter of policy, we shouldn't be encouraging opt outs."
16:44:00 [jmayer]
16:44:03 [hwest]
peterswire: The words on the page would be a technology neutral mechanism (DNT) will be built into the browser, one click (DNT on) would be honored by all DAA members. Also enforced against non DAA members, by the BBB and DMA.
16:44:19 [justin]
sidstamm, I agree, but 6b and Stu's explanation say that unclicked inclusion within wizard is insufficient as well.
16:44:21 [npdoty]
enforced against non-DAA members by DAA/BBB?
16:44:21 [hwest]
(oops I think I mixed some of that up, some was Stu)
16:44:38 [sidstamm]
I see, justin, it should be clarified.
16:44:45 [peterswire]
16:44:50 [rigo]
ack jmayer
16:44:53 [npdoty]
s/ Also enforced against non DAA members, by the BBB and DMA./ stu: Also enforced against non DAA members, by the BBB and DMA./
16:44:56 [hwest]
jmayer: Help me understand how the DMA and BBB would enforce this if a website doesn't say they honor DNT, if they're not part of DAA?
16:45:38 [hwest]
Stu: I think what we're really talking about is third party tracking, not websites. Under the current construct, people are participants of the code - DAA members - have license agreements and contracts that are specific and strong.
16:45:57 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:45:58 [hwest]
... Has been demonstrated that compliance is higher than compliance with statutes. FTC has documented that.
16:46:17 [hwest]
... Given the closeness of the ecosystem, you get almost 100% compliance.
16:46:47 [npdoty]
... condition of membership with DMA and codes of IAB and NAI, broaden the pool of covered companies
16:46:48 [hwest]
... In addition to DAA participants, condition of membership in DMA, IAB, NAI, so broadens the pool
16:47:00 [peterswire]
16:47:16 [hwest]
... Beyond that you have BBB, serves to change behavior.
16:47:19 [rvaneijk]
16:47:34 [peterswire]
16:47:38 [hwest]
... The fact that an investigation occurs, almost without fail companies have changed their practices.
16:47:56 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:48:02 [justin]
16:48:38 [Chapell]
First party can't share if DNT:1, correct?
16:48:56 [hwest]
... The other thing that I've seen is that if the company doesn't get caught in that vast net, if the BBB or DMA refers the case to the FTC, even if the FTC does not find a specific legal hook, inevitably those companies are bad actors in other ways, and they find other ways to prosecute under Section 5.
16:49:02 [moneill2]
Chapell, yes
16:49:23 [hwest]
... When you get a standard that's followed by 90+% of companies, FTC unfairness authority kicks in where it otherwise wouldn't
16:49:44 [johnsimpson]
16:49:44 [Chapell]
Thanks, moneill2
16:49:47 [rigo]
q+ to ask about browser focus in 6.a and comparison to mobile web and widgets and web applications
16:50:10 [npdoty]
ack rvaneijk
16:50:11 [justin]
stu: If the DNT standard is widely followed, FTC should be able to enforce against non-DAA members through enforcement.
16:50:32 [moneill2]
good point
16:50:37 [hwest]
rvaneijk: Approach sounds like a DAA move forward, what if the W3C standard turns out to be more strict than the DAA approach?
16:50:41 [npdoty]
... proposal would be a nice to have if the W3C standard and the DAA are aligned
16:50:56 [rvaneijk]
to me the approach sounds like seperate track, DAA way forward,with a nice to have if the W3C standard is going be aligned. What are your views on that? and what if the W3C standard turns out to be stricter then the DAA approach?
16:51:27 [npdoty]
... you can look at the MSFT default switch and what companies have honored, and companies are not following that
16:51:54 [npdoty]
of early implementations, I'm not sure which are actually ignoring IE users' DNT signals
16:51:56 [hwest]
Stu: If the W3C is more strict than the DAA approach, would have to see what it is, our strong position is that a huge cross section of the business community has developed tools here. We're ready to make them better.
16:52:15 [hwest]
... If a standard comes out that blocks cookies or undercuts the value our member companies provide consumers, I don't think they will follow it.
16:52:16 [jmayer]
I'm now more confused. Stu claimed this would be enforceable against non-DAA members. But then his discussion focused on incentives and a (disclaimed) reach theory of FTC authority.
16:52:24 [moneill2]
cannot see how wrc tpc could be less
16:52:32 [hwest]
peterswire: Stu said earlier that there is work to be done to see how the two efforts would work together.
16:52:43 [hwest]
... Stu, you mentioned third parties. How about first parties?
16:53:12 [hwest]
Stu: The standard for DAA on transparency, one or the other has to comply; different obligations on each entity.
16:53:13 [npdoty]
jmayer, I thought initially the extension was about DMA, IAB and NAI membership; I think there are different views on the FTC authority
16:53:55 [hwest]
... They have an independant obligation. In respect to choice, raised that first parties could collect data and aggregate through a third party, do same thing as a traditional ad network. Under DAA, drafted to not have a loophole there.
16:54:17 [jmayer]
Nick, all DMA and IAB members would be required to subscribe to the DAA principles? And what about the many companies that presently choose not to join the principles?
16:54:21 [hwest]
... As in the current DAA principles, would continue to apply if consumer set DNT:1
16:54:44 [Marc_]
If DNT:1, first party could not share or transfer data with unaffiliated third party.
16:54:48 [peterswire]
16:55:07 [tlr]
Marc_ -- that's Marc Groman speaking?
16:55:10 [moneill2]
should GA block img tracker if DNT 1 then?
16:55:11 [npdoty]
jmayer, I'm not claiming any detailed knowledge of DAA organization, I was just trying to note what I thought Stu had said :)
16:55:16 [hwest]
ChrisPedigoOPA: I just had a question about implementation and the DAA has a strong track record being able to reach companies and get them to implement. If W3C could finish workable spec, can you give us an idea of the timing for implementation from past experience?
16:55:18 [npdoty]
ack ChrisPedigoOPA
16:56:13 [hwest]
Stu: It really depends on the practical reality for companies of what can be implemented. If we put aside for a second where things get narrowed on permitted uses, it would seem to me that the standard would be applied, question is how can companies recognize the signal and put out the tecnology.
16:56:45 [Mike_Zaneis]
@jonathan Stu is saying that this approach would take voluntary W3C standards and make them mandatory for 90+% of the industry. IAB, DMA, And NAI all require adherence to these types of principle. Collectively that covers 3,000 companies representing nearly the entire industry.
16:56:55 [hwest]
... If the goal is to have all the browsers adopt this as well, each of them will have to make changes too. There are product cycles, have to explore it. Goal to do it as quickly as possible.
16:57:00 [Wileys]
I believe the immediate de-identification requirement for DNT:1 signals will take companies time to implement.
16:57:18 [rigo]
ack rig
16:57:18 [Zakim]
rigo, you wanted to ask about browser focus in 6.a and comparison to mobile web and widgets and web applications
16:57:20 [hwest]
... DAA stuff is all functioning today as well, changes would take some time for some changes others might not need changes.
16:57:33 [jchester2]
I also have to go to another call. Thanks.
16:57:40 [Zakim]
16:57:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.257.aarr
16:57:47 [robsherman]
zakim, arr is robsherman
16:57:47 [Zakim]
sorry, robsherman, I do not recognize a party named 'arr'
16:57:52 [Zakim]
16:57:57 [npdoty]
Zakim, aarr is robsherman
16:57:57 [Zakim]
+robsherman; got it
16:57:58 [robsherman]
zakim, aarr is robsherman
16:57:59 [Zakim]
sorry, robsherman, I do not recognize a party named 'aarr'
16:58:03 [hwest]
Rigo: Two questions. First, heard Stu saying that there are provisions in the DAA that disallow first party circumvention of limitiations by collecting and then contracting out to do the same thing. Would be interested to hear whether he thinks that could be build into the DNT standard.
16:58:27 [johnsimpson]
Apologies, will be going to another call at 10 PT (1 ET)
16:58:32 [hwest]
... Second, Stu is not opposed to first party clearly can offer DNT options to their customers.
16:58:47 [robsherman1]
robsherman1 has joined #dnt
16:58:55 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
16:59:12 [npdoty]
Chapell, johnsimpson, you wrote about some limitations on first party use; do you have a sense of whether the DAA proposal about limiting those loopholes is similar to what you had in mind?
16:59:15 [hwest]
... Third, question about 6a, mobile web is bigger than the desktop web nowadays. Ads on mobile will be difficult because smaller screen real estate. So DNT has great potential here. Will 6a exclude web apps that h ave no browser, but use web stack like a browser would?
16:59:50 [Zakim]
16:59:58 [johnsimpson]
i don't know what the DAA intends
17:00:16 [hwest]
Stu: First, re DNT standard matching DAA restriction on first party, the way I think it would play out is that it wouldn't stop first party cookies unless they're used for just that purpose. Standard itself would restrict companies from sharing that data.
17:00:26 [npdoty]
johnsimpson, absolutely, I was just curious if you'd compared to their existing code on that particular question
17:00:37 [sidstamm]
apologies all, I have to run to a 10a PDT call
17:00:41 [Zakim]
17:00:44 [Zakim]
17:00:50 [hwest]
... Haven't thought about how the first parties would know that. Would have to read the DNT setting, don't have a view about whether that works or how they would want to do it. Something we'd have to figure otu.
17:01:03 [Zakim]
17:01:06 [tlr]
17:01:22 [Marc_]
Peter, thank you very much. Have to run.
17:01:41 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
17:01:44 [hwest]
... On first parties, it's the same question, I don't have a sense of whether we'd view this as first parties honoring. I haven't thought throught the implications of that. Certainly not something we'd support in a standard itself.
17:01:49 [Zakim]
17:02:29 [hwest]
... The mobile web is a complex issue. First off, the DAA has been in the process of developing a mobile web implementation of the existing standards, goal to combine them so that it's one standard regardless of technology. Release in the coming weeks.
17:03:04 [Zakim]
17:03:28 [hwest]
... What we would envision there at a high level is that the standard would apply to mobile web and data collected across apps over time in a similar way. The tech between app and market and OS and what happens on browser is different, we're in the process of commissioning an app that would serve the same functionality. Lots of detail to sort there.
17:03:34 [Zakim]
17:03:35 [Zakim]
- +1.202.587.aakk
17:03:35 [Zakim]
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:03:45 [hwest]
peterswire: We have a call coming up Wednesday, thanks Stu
17:03:54 [justin]
17:03:57 [npdoty]
ack tlr
17:04:15 [Zakim]
17:04:15 [hwest]
roessler: Thanks Stu, looking forward to hearing from the stakeholders in the group more broadly in the lead up to the F2F
17:04:29 [Zakim]
17:04:31 [Zakim]
17:04:32 [Zakim]
17:04:32 [Zakim]
17:04:32 [Zakim]
- +1.703.370.aadd
17:04:33 [Zakim]
17:04:33 [Zakim]
17:04:33 [Zakim]
17:04:33 [hwest]
Call adjourned.
17:04:33 [kulick]
kulick has left #dnt
17:04:34 [Zakim]
17:04:34 [Zakim]
17:04:34 [Zakim]
17:04:34 [Zakim]
17:04:34 [Zakim]
17:04:35 [Zakim]
17:04:35 [Zakim]
- +1.908.239.aall
17:04:35 [Zakim]
17:04:35 [Zakim]
17:04:36 [Zakim]
17:04:36 [Zakim]
17:04:36 [Zakim]
17:04:37 [Zakim]
17:04:37 [Zakim]
- +1.917.846.aapp
17:04:37 [Zakim]
17:04:38 [Zakim]
17:04:38 [Zakim]
17:04:38 [Zakim]
17:04:38 [Zakim]
17:04:39 [Zakim]
17:04:39 [Zakim]
17:04:39 [Zakim]
17:04:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:04:40 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Amy_Colando, +1.609.258.aaaa, JeffWilson, moneill2, +1.202.326.aabb, paulohm, +1.415.999.aacc, Fielding, +1.703.370.aadd, sidstamm, npdoty,
17:04:40 [Zakim]
... dsinger, Yianni, Joanne, Peder_Magee, johnsimpson, rvaneijk, +1.646.827.aaff, SusanIsrael, wseltzer, BillS, prestia, [CDT], +1.415.471.aagg, jchester2, dwainberg,
17:04:45 [Zakim]
... +1.917.846.aahh, BerinSzoka, Dan_Auerbach, +1.404.385.aaii, hwest, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.344.aajj, Rigo, +1.202.587.aakk, WaltM_Comcast, RichardWeaver, efelten, Chapell,
17:04:45 [Zakim]
... chris_IAB, +1.908.239.aall, WileyS, Marc, +1.202.370.aamm, robsherman, [Microsoft], hefferjr, +1.425.214.aann, kulick, adrianba, bryan, David_MacMillan, Brooks, Lee, eberkower,
17:04:45 [Zakim]
... +49.172.147.aaoo, schunter, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.917.846.aapp, +1.425.614.aaqq, +1.202.257.aarr
17:04:45 [Zakim]
17:04:49 [Zakim]
17:04:49 [Zakim]
17:04:49 [Zakim]
17:04:50 [Zakim]
17:04:51 [Zakim]
17:04:51 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:04:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:04:53 [hwest]
npdoty, thanks - saw you correcting some pieces, was falling behind scribing in some places!
17:04:54 [Zakim]
17:04:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:05:08 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
17:05:12 [peterswire]
peterswire has left #dnt
17:06:37 [tlr]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:06:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate tlr
17:07:21 [Zakim]
17:08:16 [wseltzer]
rrsagent, pointer?
17:08:16 [RRSAgent]
17:08:18 [rigo_]
rigo_ has joined #dnt
17:08:47 [Zakim]
- +1.415.471.aagg
17:09:44 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
17:22:32 [Zakim]
17:22:36 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:22:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Amy_Colando, +1.609.258.aaaa, JeffWilson, moneill2, +1.202.326.aabb, paulohm, +1.415.999.aacc, Fielding, +1.703.370.aadd, sidstamm, npdoty, dsinger, Yianni, Joanne,
17:22:38 [Zakim]
... Peder_Magee, johnsimpson, rvaneijk, +1.646.827.aaff, SusanIsrael, wseltzer, BillS, prestia, [CDT], +1.415.471.aagg, jchester2, dwainberg, +1.917.846.aahh, BerinSzoka,
17:22:42 [Zakim]
... Dan_Auerbach, +1.404.385.aaii, hwest, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.344.aajj, Rigo, +1.202.587.aakk, WaltM_Comcast, RichardWeaver, efelten, Chapell, chris_IAB, +1.908.239.aall, WileyS,
17:22:42 [Zakim]
... Marc, +1.202.370.aamm, robsherman, [Microsoft], hefferjr, +1.425.214.aann, kulick, adrianba, bryan, David_MacMillan, Brooks, Lee, eberkower, +49.172.147.aaoo, schunter,
17:22:42 [Zakim]
... Jonathan_Mayer, +1.917.846.aapp, +1.425.614.aaqq, +1.202.257.aarr
17:31:55 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:44:08 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
17:47:19 [rigo__]
rigo__ has joined #dnt
18:18:04 [strider1]
strider1 has joined #dnt
19:07:29 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
19:17:11 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
20:47:11 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
21:10:54 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
21:38:01 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
22:04:28 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
23:08:13 [strider]
strider has joined #dnt
23:46:58 [strider1]
strider1 has joined #dnt