00:00:05 ... offer to make the same neutral language 00:00:20 Peter: additional opt out to audience measurement? 00:00:25 q? 00:00:30 rigo has joined #dnt 00:00:39 ?: but we'd have audience measurement as a permitted use, this is moot. No opt out. 00:00:48 s/?:/RichardW:/ 00:01:17 John: appreciate what David described as a neutral place, but very concerned about prescriptive attempt to dictate exact language in the UI 00:01:20 +Q 00:01:23 Justin, does the framework allow browsers to turn to countermeasures if their DNT: 1 is ignored? 00:01:28 ack johnsimpson 00:01:32 q+ 00:01:33 ... troubling from competitive point of view, potential anti-trust issues 00:01:42 ... if DAA says you all must do this, that's troubling 00:02:00 Stu: should be clear, DAA isn't dictating what standard browsers follow. Just what the DAA would enforce against. 00:02:06 jmayer, I don't believe the framework addresses that either way. 00:02:07 ... browsers can determine what they do 00:02:08 q+ 00:02:34 ... hope it would be consistent. Competitive concerns in many areas, not just here. 00:02:47 peterswire: I teach anti-trust. 00:03:40 ... My own view is with history of standards and anti-trust, and more generally, felt satisfied we were in a comfortable place 00:04:13 ... overall increase in user choice and higher equilibrium overall, this may be the highest and best answer for consumers 00:04:34 ... complexity there, but have spent a little time on this, personal view without research 00:04:38 q? 00:04:39 q? 00:04:50 dsinger: guidelines about capability rather than design 00:05:18 ... capable of informing the user. Don't get into check mark or being prescriptive. Leave room for innovation here and compete 00:05:29 maybe there's agreement on this separation: the standard would define what it means to comply with an expressed signal; sites can choose when to comply with a signal or when to disregard; DAA's self-regulatory program would bring enforcement on complying with signals at least under these set of conditions 00:05:36 ... Not too worried from document from the DAA 00:05:42 John: document sounds fine 00:05:54 ack BerinSzoka 00:05:58 dsinger: every browser will get prickly if you start telling us how to design our products 00:05:58 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 00:06:13 Berin: Peter's ship and dock analogy. 00:06:35 ... dock owners saying "hold on, you can't tell us we need security" but of course you can. 00:06:46 q- 00:06:47 q? 00:06:55 ... the ship owners can say to the dock owners "you need a gate" so people don't free ride with a ship full of free goods 00:07:16 ... this happens all the time in standards. Not unreasonable or anti-trust, saying otherwise is a distraction. 00:07:22 ... we're here to cut a deal. 00:07:27 removed myself from que -- as it seems like both Berin and DavidSinger are in favor of guidelines 00:07:29 ... there won't be a deal without this language. 00:07:44 ... this should not be about free riding, needs to work for both parties. 00:07:59 ... John or browsers, if you think otherwise, I'd like to here it _now_ 00:08:13 s/here it/hear it/ 00:08:31 Peter: there would need to be discussion around details 00:08:37 (yeesh, thank you thomas) 00:08:43 q? 00:08:47 We've already agreed that we're not going to put rules on the ships' user interface . . . 00:08:54 q? 00:08:59 ack afowler 00:09:04 q+ 00:09:30 Alex: more color about why browsers started talking a few months ago. Not a good situation if every browser tells a different story. Many users have multiple browsers, IE and work and another at home 00:09:36 q+ 00:09:57 maybe like using a common RSS icon for discovery of RSS feeds 00:10:06 q+ 00:10:08 ... from UX perspective, need some consistency. We could do something constructive by providing commonality, where it's located in the browser, very practical reasons to make this neutral 00:10:12 ... we're already there 00:10:32 q+ 00:10:33 ... believe this is the right direction to go. We could go into crazy by being too prescriptive, but don't think that's where we're headed 00:10:36 ack rigo 00:10:57 Rigo: same lines, standard setting has remedies to many problems in horizontal agreements 00:11:18 ... be careful not to be prescriptive, mobile, internet of things, require innovative UIs 00:11:22 q? 00:11:44 ... but in P3P 1.1, as we learn how to use it, we expect a certain reaction from software, get into a loop and that's a good thing (iterative and learning?) 00:12:02 ... don't want to get into do you want DNT? yes, are you sure, yes, are you really really sure, yes - not what we want 00:12:07 ack Thomas_Schauf 00:12:40 thomas?: if browser settings only deal with outset, don't need to be detailed 00:12:53 ... DNT at onset, then how to react to DNT unset is given 00:13:01 s/thomas?/thomasSchauf/ 00:13:06 ... have permitted use, non-permitted use, or legal requirements 00:13:15 s/outset/unset/ 00:13:21 s/onset/unset/ 00:13:27 ... in the details, how to move on if we have DNT unset 00:13:34 I'm confused, I thought our specs didn't speak to how recipients to handle DNT unset 00:13:48 ... if users take the choice can say yes or no, can deal with audience data 00:13:55 can someone else help here? 00:13:57 ... though maybe a global considerations document could help you understand your different legal requirements 00:14:08 thank you - 00:14:09 q? 00:14:09 npdoty, i am confused too 00:14:18 adrian: echo Alex, 00:14:20 aleecia, I will scribe if you need to be spelled 00:14:34 ... consistency is good, problematic where too prescriptive 00:14:35 Thomas_Schauf, can you clarify here in IRC? susanisrael and I are a little confused about DNT unset -- don't we not have requirements in that case? 00:14:43 ack adrianba 00:14:48 ... if exactly what the words must be is too much 00:14:57 ... crosses the line 00:15:03 q+ hober 00:15:07 aleecia, was that what you were asking? for new scribe? 00:15:10 Sounds like we're all in agreement - next issue? 00:15:13 Stu: maybe just have these three concepts 00:15:21 susan, i'm ok, just wasn't getting Thomas well 00:15:22 q? 00:15:24 thanks though 00:15:42 +1, sounds like we have agreement, action item for normative text? 00:15:43 sorry for typos 00:16:04 Firstly, DNT=unset is the default. So also browser manufactures should respect this default. So we need a clear language on the question: What happens if DNT signal is unset 00:16:08 Alan: sounds like agreement we need some baseline standards around disclosures, without too prescriptive including exact language 00:16:15 aleecia, good, ok. Let me know if you need help 00:16:30 ... clarification: will group as whole take this up, or browser discussion? 00:16:44 (Thomas Schauf, we have clear answers there, happy to talk at break) 00:16:53 q? 00:16:59 close q 00:17:05 zakim, close queue 00:17:05 ok, wseltzer, the speaker queue is closed 00:17:08 David: no need for it to be exclusive, but let's not have a written-by-committee disaster at the end, and not take time away from main DNT work 00:17:09 Remember the old joke: a camel is a horse designed by committee 00:17:11 q? 00:17:11 ack Chapell 00:17:14 Maybe browsers can offer something, and others can then offer comments 00:17:16 ... would be happy for additional help 00:17:21 Alan: would love to be part 00:17:27 dsinger: nodes 00:17:28 BerinSzoka, one of my favorite 00:17:30 ack hober 00:17:46 aleecia: sure, but not covered seems the legal questions (EU/US) 00:18:09 Increasing consistency is what we want to do. All browsers have a place we type things in, URL and sometimes search as well. 00:18:24 ... Mozilla is called awesome bar. Ours is unified search field or something. 00:18:33 Everyone knows what it is, you type things in and something happens. 00:18:52 Again - we're all in agreement on this topic - next??? 00:19:01 Helps if browsers explain this in a consistent way. But it's ok Mozilla calls it the awesome bar, you can switch browsers and figure it out. 00:19:11 Or is everyone drawing this out to get to dinner without going to another topic? :-) 00:19:14 Thomas-can't scribe & chat, but we have this covered 00:19:24 kulick has joined #dnt 00:19:34 Peter: agenda for tomorrow, summary today, where to go for beer 00:19:51 ... tomorrow, Matthias & dsinger chair, technical measures in part 6 with TPE 00:19:53 we have issue-172 on this topic (explanatory text requirements for UAs), and already have a few proposed pieces of text on this from Shane and Jonathan 00:19:56 rigo has joined #dnt 00:20:03 ... after lunch, John Calous (sp?) at 2 pacific 00:20:10 s/Calous/Callas/ 00:20:43 ... well known security person, did a call with us. Follow up discussions with specific security issues in DNT realm. Update there with Q&A 00:20:52 (thanks wendy!) 00:21:06 Peter: will talk about unique ids and security 00:21:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Feb/0123.html 00:21:26 ... may well have follow up on financial auditing, subgroup working on that. 00:21:40 ... afternoon, browser v. user agent and how we talk about it 00:21:57 ... that's tomorrow. wednesday is whatever else we've parked and where are we now. 00:22:03 rigo has joined #dnt 00:22:13 ... today, talked about audience measurement. 00:22:34 ... if audience measurement gets built in, at least compared to DAA code it's a limitation on collection 00:23:08 ... prior critique is hard to see limitations, overall if we have do not collect as well as do not target, that addresses concerns from FTC 00:23:20 ... could be an important step toward do not collect on something important 00:23:33 ... second, dsinger agreement on common resource with browsers open to others 00:23:53 ... third, Stu introduced points on the phone and we heard from browsers we are converging on item 6 00:24:21 ... for Monday, if we're making progress on do not collect and progress on item 6, glimmers of good things here. Tomorrow, unique IDs and framework for addressing that over time. 00:24:30 BillScannell has joined #dnt 00:24:37 ... link in agenda to Dinner on your own, but meet for drinks at Firehouse Brewery, 111 South Murphy. 00:24:43 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/sunnyvale/agenda.html 00:24:49 ... quick walk 00:24:57 http://goo.gl/maps/8AbZ3 00:25:09 johnsimpson has left #dnt 00:25:24 adjourned. 00:25:25 -mecallahan 00:25:26 -StuIngis 00:25:29 -moneill2 00:25:29 Zakim, list attendees 00:25:30 As of this point the attendees have been like, 40, of, us, +1.781.479.aaaa, bilcorry, Gregg_Vanderheiden, schunter, moneill2, +1.647.274.aabb, +1.215.898.aacc, Turow?, 00:25:30 ... +1.647.274.aadd, +1.202.257.aaee, +1.215.898.aaff, +1.408.223.aagg, +1.202.344.aahh, +1.202.257.aaii, mecallahan, StuIngis 00:25:40 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 00:25:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 00:25:52 rrsagent, make logs public 00:26:17 chair: Peter_Swire 00:27:02 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group 00:27:10 rrsagent, make minutes 00:27:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer 00:29:11 -[Apple] 00:29:12 Team_(dnt)18:00Z has ended 00:29:12 Attendees were like, 40, of, us, +1.781.479.aaaa, bilcorry, Gregg_Vanderheiden, schunter, moneill2, +1.647.274.aabb, +1.215.898.aacc, Turow?, +1.647.274.aadd, +1.202.257.aaee, 00:29:12 ... +1.215.898.aaff, +1.408.223.aagg, +1.202.344.aahh, +1.202.257.aaii, mecallahan, StuIngis 00:33:25 robsherman has joined #dnt 00:42:49 fwagner has joined #dnt 01:24:03 jeff has joined #dnt 03:37:15 dsinger has joined #dnt 03:49:28 adrianba has joined #dnt 04:09:15 afowler has joined #dnt 04:45:46 afowler has left #dnt 04:58:41 kulick has joined #dnt 05:03:12 kulick has left #dnt 05:42:57 strider has joined #dnt 05:51:37 npdoty has joined #dnt 06:20:50 rrsagent, pointer? 06:20:50 See http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-irc#T06-20-50 06:50:50 Zakim has left #dnt 07:47:25 strider has joined #dnt 08:23:20 schunter has joined #dnt 08:44:53 schunter has joined #dnt 09:48:10 strider has joined #dnt 10:06:59 npdoty has joined #dnt 15:40:34 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 15:40:34 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-irc 15:40:36 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:40:36 Zakim has joined #dnt 15:40:38 Zakim, this will be 15:40:38 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:40:39 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 15:40:39 Date: 07 May 2013 15:40:43 Zakim, this will be 87225 15:40:43 ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM scheduled to start 40 minutes ago 15:40:53 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group f2f 15:40:57 chair: schunter, peterswire 15:41:07 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:41:08 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has not yet started, npdoty 15:41:09 On IRC I see RRSAgent, npdoty, rvaneijk, fwagner, dsinger, jeff, bilcorry, strider, wseltzer_cloud, schunter, MT01, moneill2, trackbot, hober, tlr, mischat, wseltzer 15:41:31 Zakim, who is on the phone 15:41:31 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', schunter 15:45:45 efelten has joined #dnt 15:47:05 hwest has joined #dnt 15:47:09 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 15:47:09 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 15:47:33 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 15:47:33 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 15:48:48 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 15:48:48 jmayer has joined #dnt 15:48:48 Joanne has joined #DNT 15:48:48 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 15:49:19 zakim, who is on the phone 15:49:19 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', moneill2 15:49:41 adrianba has joined #dnt 15:51:17 bryan has joined #dnt 15:53:11 jchester2 has joined #dnt 15:53:55 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:53:55 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has not yet started, schunter 15:53:56 On IRC I see jchester2, bryan, adrianba, Joanne, jmayer, hwest, efelten, Zakim, RRSAgent, npdoty, rvaneijk, fwagner, dsinger, jeff, bilcorry, strider, wseltzer_cloud, schunter, 15:53:56 ... MT01, moneill2, trackbot, hober, tlr, mischat, wseltzer 15:54:30 Zakim, code? 15:54:30 the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), npdoty 15:54:35 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:54:35 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has not yet started, npdoty 15:54:37 On IRC I see jchester2, bryan, adrianba, Joanne, jmayer, hwest, efelten, Zakim, RRSAgent, npdoty, rvaneijk, fwagner, dsinger, jeff, bilcorry, strider, wseltzer_cloud, schunter, 15:54:37 ... MT01, moneill2, trackbot, hober, tlr, mischat, wseltzer 15:54:43 Zakim, this is dntf2f 15:54:43 ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM 15:54:45 +Jonathan_Mayer 15:54:47 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:54:48 On the phone I see ??P65, [Apple], [IPcaller], bilcorry, Jonathan_Mayer 15:54:58 Zakim, mute me 15:54:58 bilcorry should now be muted 15:55:00 Zakim, [IPcaller] is moneill2 15:55:00 +moneill2; got it 15:55:02 Zakim, ??P65 is schunter 15:55:03 +schunter; got it 15:55:47 PaulGlist has joined #dnt 15:55:50 Yianni has joined #DNT 15:55:51 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:55:51 On the phone I see schunter, [Apple], moneill2, bilcorry (muted), Jonathan_Mayer 15:57:03 Regrets, have to participate by the phone for morning sessions today and tomorrow, will be in person in the afternoon sessions. 15:57:32 MarkVickers has joined #dnt 15:58:50 Since I am remote, too, this means that we can communicate clearly with each other ;-) 15:58:59 prestia has joined #dnt 15:59:39 Joanne has joined #DNT 16:00:00 adrianba_ has joined #dnt 16:00:18 chris_IAB has joined #dnt 16:00:41 robsherman has joined #dnt 16:01:05 Bin_Hu has joined #dnt 16:01:15 Richard_comScore has joined #dnt 16:01:30 present+ Bin_Hu 16:02:03 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 16:02:21 paulohm has joined #dnt 16:02:37 jeffwilson has joined #dnt 16:02:56 AAIsham has joined #dnt 16:03:27 vinay has joined #dnt 16:03:27 scribe volunteers: Alan, JC, Rigo 16:03:32 (scribing one hour at a time) 16:03:40 Chair: schunter 16:03:43 rigo has joined #dnt 16:03:48 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group 16:03:51 Chapell has joined #DNT 16:03:51 sidstamm has joined #dnt 16:03:54 WaltM_Comcast has joined #DNT 16:03:58 Date: May 7, 2013 16:04:00 dwainberg has joined #dnt 16:04:10 scribenick: Chapell 16:04:19 adrianba has joined #dnt 16:04:42 kulick has joined #dnt 16:04:44 haakonfb has joined #dnt 16:04:48 kulick has left #dnt 16:05:40 Peter: Intro... 16:05:55 ... we begin with....History of the weather(?) 16:06:15 rigo has joined #dnt 16:06:32 kulick has joined #dnt 16:06:34 .... blizzard at MIT, and now.... rainy in (always sunny) sunnyvale... 16:06:40 "weather gods have been smiling on us" 16:06:51 we're supposed to have a sunstorm today 16:06:53 JC has joined #DNT 16:07:05 .... progress made yesterday. How we can bring this together... 16:07:06 rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt 16:07:25 Consumer Groups - 2 priorities.... must be do not collect... 16:07:31 Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt 16:07:51 BillScannell has joined #dnt 16:08:26 .... Peter and others have expressed concerns with the DAA code --- DAA has interest in addressing these concerns. If we address these concerns, we can address the concerns around do not collect 16:08:44 tara has joined #dnt 16:08:55 ... 2nd concern from privacy advocates: the UID issue. 16:09:28 .... If I turn DNT on, you don't set a UID --- this sounds acheivable to Peter.... 16:10:01 .... How do we get there? We get as far as we can this week. Understand WHY we need a UID. 16:10:27 .... if we create structure where it looks like there's convergence, and credible promises, then Peter believes we have a chance to address the UID issue as well. 16:10:30 vincent has joined #dnt 16:10:55 Marc has joined #dnt 16:10:58 justin has joined #dnt 16:11:20 ....Re: Advertising Industry: want's DNT default off and meaningful explanation of DNT functionality 16:12:00 Brooks has joined #dnt 16:12:24 Wileys has joined #dnt 16:12:34 .... if it turns out that we meet priorities of both advocates and advertising industry, then that's a really good reason to come together enough tomorrow and continue.... 16:12:52 .... conversely, if we don't have agreement on these issues, it may not make sense to continue. 16:13:01 .... re: Where is the Normative language? 16:13:13 I sent an email to the list that reflects my understanding of yesterday's conversation of browser user interface. I think we have a "convergence" / "are in the ballpark" on informing users. We don't have agreement on non-browser UAs, defaults and UI specifics, and ignoring DNT: 1. 16:13:41 .... All the contingencies make it difficult to close issues. This is the reason that we've gone to a framework approach. This allows a high level view. And the text will follow. 16:13:59 jmayer, do we not have agreement on unset-by-default? 16:14:25 .... If we have the stakeholder priorities set by Wed, then we can address on subsequent Wed calls. 16:14:51 +q 16:15:04 q+ Lmastria_DAA 16:15:18 ack Lmastria_DAA 16:15:22 Nick, I believe we have agreement on a silent default in a mainstream browser. I have not seen any indicia of agreement on other implementations, nor agreement on who decides whether a UA is noncompliant and what websites can do about it. 16:16:02 q? 16:16:04 q+ johnsimpson 16:16:10 LouMastria: Some reason to be hopeful. The famework is more holistic. All of this is good. One of the issues discussed yesterday is the concern about cookie blocking. DAA sees this as a material issue. 16:16:12 ack johnsimpson 16:16:20 fielding has joined #dnt 16:16:34 Is there anything about cookie blocking in the draft framework? 16:16:38 +q 16:16:48 Justin, no, there isn't. 16:16:49 justin, no. 16:16:55 JohnSimpson: It seems to be possed that there are two sides: DAA and privacy advocates. There are many more stakeholders. He's not sure how all the other stakeholders fit in here. 16:17:04 ... but it's something we've heard of interest from both DAA and from browsers 16:17:29 ..... Moreover, the room is filled with lawyers and policy wonks --- but few implementers. That's important to consider. 16:17:44 q+ 16:18:00 -q 16:18:38 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 16:18:47 q? 16:18:52 q+ 16:19:11 I think that last-call is where we ask for implementation and feedback, and we'll get it from implementers... 16:19:21 PeterSwire: Hasn't heard of a deal breaker from other members of the ecosystem -- but has heard from advocates and DAA. Peter hopes that others will let him know if they have deal breakers. 16:19:35 q? 16:19:36 +1 to dsinger, Last Call and CR both are about getting more implementers and testing 16:19:39 q+ 16:19:42 .... Peter has tried to bring in many experts into the discussion in order to have a fact based approach. 16:19:50 ack jmayer 16:19:56 Jmayer: 3 points 16:20:10 +q 16:20:45 .... 1. What was agreed to --- We have reaffirmation of what we've long agreed to. This is seperate from the details of browser UI, what is required of non-browser UA's and browser defaults.... 16:21:16 .... moreover, we haven't built consensus on what happens if the browsers send a signal that violates the standard. 16:21:48 Zakim, close the queue 16:21:48 ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed 16:22:09 2. Many participants in the group put lots of brainpower into these discussions. There is a tendancy in the way that this has progressed that lack of objection = consent... 16:22:28 ..... many entities have expressed concerns with the framework. 16:22:45 .... glossing over long-standing disagreement isn't productive 16:23:06 afowler has joined #dnt 16:23:17 3. This framework is a giant horse trade... industry gets movement by browsers. 16:23:36 ... regulators and advocates get movement on permitted uses and uid's. Compromise is important. 16:23:59 q? 16:24:06 q? 16:24:15 .... given all the discussion around browser interface, JM believes there needs to be significant givebacks re: UID and permitted uses. 16:24:28 q= 16:24:34 Matthias: Via phone (wishes he could be here) 16:24:37 zakim, empty the queue 16:24:37 I don't understand 'empty the queue', justin 16:24:51 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/sunnyvale/TPE-Discussions.pdf 16:24:54 ..... Slide 2: summarized the status 16:25:11 -q 16:25:25 .... pleasantly surprised how much progress has been made. 16:25:28 BerinSzoka has joined #DNT 16:26:15 Matt we lost you 16:26:15 continent isolated 16:26:17 +[Apple.a] 16:26:23 -schunter 16:26:30 -[Apple] 16:26:36 +??P4 16:26:47 you are back 16:26:51 schunter, apologies, for our phone issue, we hear you again 16:27:08 Matthias: 6 open issues. Plan during this meeting is to address these issues. 16:27:17 .... minor issues can be addressed down the line via phone. 16:27:39 .... Agenda (slide 3) structured the session in 2 parts: 16:27:58 ,,,, Roy will give an update on what has changed in the draft, then 16:28:01 i|schunter, |Topic: TPE| 16:28:17 .... discussion of preference collection, transmission and acceptance 16:28:51 .... Session 2: review pendig proposals. Discuss and assign changes. 16:29:15 q? 16:29:16 .... then we look at item 6 of the draft framework 16:29:31 zakim, empty the queue 16:29:31 I don't understand 'empty the queue', dsinger 16:29:31 q- 16:29:34 q= 16:29:35 q- 16:29:38 zakim, clear queue 16:29:38 I don't understand 'clear queue', wseltzer 16:29:39 zakim, reopen the queue 16:29:40 ok, tlr, the speaker queue is open 16:29:42 zakim, queue= 16:29:42 I see no one on the speaker queue 16:29:49 zakim, open the queue 16:29:49 ok, dsinger, the speaker queue is open 16:29:53 q? 16:29:58 .... Dsinger will co-moderate and manage the que 16:30:37 q? 16:31:08 A recap of my three points: there remain deep divides on browser user interface, we cannot ignore longstanding and well-considered ISSUE positions on account of high-level framing and silence, and for the framework's horse trade to work there needs to be significant movement on collection and retention. 16:31:52 Fielding: A number of changes.... slide covers the changes from previous drafts. No surprises.... 16:34:02 ..... We changed the javascript property from navigator interface.... 16:34:27 .... trackig status values: a number of proposals were added. 16:34:57 .... 5.2.2. None (N) --- left this in as an option because it wasn't clear whether we decided to keep it in 16:35:22 .... most of the differences are reformatting. Very few text changes. 16:35:42 [fielding scrolling through http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/diffs/TPE-WD3-to-WD4.html ] 16:35:53 ... main new things are: "!" means "not-compliant, "D" disregard.... 16:36:30 and P means "potential consent" 16:37:51 Notes that some of the re-organizations and section movements make this look scarier than it is. 16:37:55 @JC, can you take over? Some of this is beyond my tech understanding... 16:38:36 Fielding: trying to address multiple first parties and indicate who is listed as the responsible data controller for that service... the domain may not indicate this 16:38:57 IMHO: I believe that no scribing is needed; the DIFF speaks for itself. 16:39:17 ;-) The code is the documentation ;-) 16:39:28 @schunter: works for me 16:39:45 DSinger: Exceptions changes... 16:39:47 Dominique_ has joined #dnt 16:40:02 .... look scarier than they are. 16:40:37 aleecia has joined #dnt 16:40:57 sidstamm has joined #dnt 16:42:36 .... worth repeating: the challenge of getting consent from the user lay with the site. The duty of explaining the exception is left to the site. 16:43:09 Ari has joined #dnt 16:44:50 Fielding: list of acknowledgements at end of the document. If we missed anyone, please let us know 16:45:28 Schunter: Any questions on spec? 16:45:58 q? 16:46:03 SWiley: how do we handle c-name parties? Do we need to name them seperately? 16:46:46 Fielding: use the name of the controller. 16:47:05 Swiley: is controller optional or required? 16:47:08 Question: are we discussing objections now? 16:47:13 No 16:47:15 Or just clarifying questions? 16:47:16 Fielding: optional in some instances, required in others. 16:47:24 Clarifying and understanding. 16:47:38 Ok, thanks. 16:47:56 Swiley: this is the work around service provider -- trying to address transparency concerns over who has control over data. 16:48:43 Justin: the spec doesn't include "disregard"..... 16:49:26 q+ 16:49:31 Fielding: There are two options: 1) you have consent, or 2) data must be deleted..... 16:49:37 Clarification: If you choose "P", you can not later disregard. As a consequence, if you do not like a signal/user agent, you need to send disregard immediately. 16:49:48 q? 16:49:52 ack jmayer 16:50:18 Jmayer: Wants to hear more about use cases for the "P" flag -- how does this play out in practice. Why is existing consent flag inadequate? 16:50:26 q+ 16:50:41 Fielding: the main goal of the "P" flat is to allow services that collect in real time but do not process data in real time to function. 16:51:27 .... this allows those entities who process data on back end to adhere to DNT. These entities throw away data within 48 hour period if they find that they don't have consent. 16:52:14 TS has joined #DNT 16:52:25 q? 16:52:35 hefferjr has joined #dnt 16:53:00 q? 16:53:26 q+ 16:53:36 we have a thread with Ronan on the mailing list which might explain the detail, jmayer 16:53:43 answering Jonathan, we asked…and we were assured it was hard 16:53:55 I don't think it has to be done in 30 ms, since it's the loading of a separate tracking status resource 16:54:23 for status resource: yes. AFAIR, it can also appear on a response header. 16:54:34 q? 16:54:38 I really think reading the email from Ronan will help, if you want more info, jmayer 16:54:53 Fielding: doing a lookup requires a significant capacity. 16:55:03 jmayer, I think the issue is that many systems do batch operations to identify out-of-band-consent, and don't do it in realtime 16:55:26 +q 16:55:41 q? 16:55:42 q- 16:55:46 Alright, now I'm even less comfortable with this. A site's crufty implementation doesn't allow dynamic checking for DNT consent (e.g. a "Consent=True" cookie)... so it gets to prospectively collect short-term browsing history from users. 16:55:56 q? 16:55:57 Chapell, we can switch in 5 minutes 16:56:05 ack rvaneijk 16:56:08 JC, perfect 16:56:22 -q 16:56:47 Sid, I get that some implementers may want to go that route. But the tradeoff is a substantial impact on privacy for users who haven't actually given consent. 16:56:53 q? 16:57:13 q? 16:57:28 Schunter: if other questions, please post to mailing list 16:57:49 zakim, who is on the call? 16:57:49 On the phone I see moneill2, bilcorry (muted), Jonathan_Mayer, [Apple.a], ??P4 16:57:51 I think I prefer P to 3. At least with P you get an indication that there's an open question about whether there's consent or not. 16:58:03 Zakim, ??P4 is schunter 16:58:03 +schunter; got it 16:58:13 amyc has joined #dnt 16:58:28 Justin, I'm fine with a signal that a site thinks it has consent. But if it's not sure, it should become sure, not get to make an assumption and start collecting. 16:58:38 Schunter: sites want to ensure that preferences are coming from users in a reliable way. 16:58:40 [slide 5] 16:58:56 q? 16:59:08 The problem is false positives: what about all the users who didn't actually consent? That could, potentially, be almost everyone. 16:59:25 Chapell, I'm ready 16:59:31 I agree with Jonathan. This has an impact on privacy and we need to fix this. 16:59:33 JC, sounds good 16:59:51 +q 17:00:05 Schunter: What is okay an install dialog for a browser requesting user DNT preference 17:00:06 q? 17:00:08 scribenik, JC 17:00:20 ... it is not okay to set a preference without contacting user 17:00:22 q+ 17:00:28 ack ef 17:00:29 ... how do we enforce this 17:00:36 +q 17:01:12 Efelten: This seems to focus on products instead of getting informed consent 17:01:25 ... why would the group be against a router getting informed consent 17:01:42 Schunter: To be clear we are against a product coming preset with a value 17:02:01 jmayer, yes, for presumably nearly everyone getting the P signal there would not be consent. I don't like this approach but I don't see a better alternative (ending use of census data for non-DNT:1 users, , exception for market resesarch) 17:02:16 ... I don't have a clear decision if the spec covers whether an organization can set the default for a router 17:02:27 q? 17:02:30 ... DNT 0 or 1 should not come in firmware 17:02:34 ac Chapell 17:02:34 Q? 17:03:13 Chapell: I am under impression that request for prefernce during install shouldn't be in spec 17:03:17 q+ 17:03:18 Justin, we covered this yesterday—privacy-preserving implementations, service provider exception are also options. And even if we give an exception here, let's not pretend it's about consent. 17:03:19 my question was not scibed: what about the alternative of not having the P flag. We had the discussion on the call that if you can not determine in realtime whether you have consent you should't be collecting data. The discussion on the call then went into a possible permitted use for short-term retention to determine consent. 17:03:32 Dsinger: it is not covered in the spec, but it is in the DAA principles 17:03:46 Roy explained that this is reflected in alternative 2. Is up for the compliance doc to address this. 17:03:51 tnx. 17:03:54 q- 17:04:35 Fielding: I believe section 3 discusses first use and the request cannot be done at install time because user may not be installer 17:05:00 Ok, so what if the installer is the user? Or the installer is someone acting on the user's behalf? 17:05:05 Schunter: If the user is installing the PC or browser then the user can set the DNT prefernece. The same for IT department. 17:05:17 ... preference should be explicit and informed 17:05:27 we say "Key to that notion of expression is that the signal sent must reflect the user's preference, not the choice of some vendor, institution, site, or any network-imposed mechanism outside the user's control; this applies equally to both the general preference and exceptions. The basic principle is that a tracking preference expression is only transmitted when it reflects a deliberate choice by the user. In the absence of user choice, there is no tracking 17:05:27 preference expressed." 17:05:29 q+ 17:05:30 +q 17:05:30 q? 17:05:36 From Section 3: a user might select a check-box in their user agent's configuration, install an extension or add-on that is specifically designed to add a tracking preference expression 17:05:38 ... according to the framework we do not want to allow install setting 17:05:51 so Roy is right; the IS dept installing it is not OK. The user doing his own install might be 17:05:59 Zakim, close queue 17:05:59 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is closed 17:06:02 q? 17:06:07 ack Chapell 17:06:14 q+ 17:06:15 q+ 17:06:28 Wondering how we'll have time to reach any agreement on contentious issues when we're still working through clarifying questions this late into the conversation. 17:06:40 Adrianba: It is not clear why this discussion is in the TPE. We don't need to cover the consent experience when it can be covered in compliance spec 17:06:50 People are discussing my intro slides ;-) 17:06:51 ... are we trying to cover this area twice? 17:07:04 bryan has joined #dnt 17:07:07 Fielding: how the preference is set changes the meaning of the protocol 17:07:11 q? 17:07:12 The key point about the router case is that unless it was selected by the user (or whoever is responsible for the user, e.g. a parent), a router-inserted DNT flag is not a "preference". So default DNT:1 without control is in violation, I agree. 17:07:14 ack adrianba 17:07:15 Telling IS depts they cannot set policy is unlikely to work in practice 17:07:15 +q 17:07:16 q? 17:07:22 ... changing who sets the value changes the protocol 17:07:38 q? 17:07:44 ... The UA on the protocol side is in TPE. What to do is in the compliance spec. 17:07:51 I'm reading section 3 explicit;y allows the user agent to ask at start up what their preference is. I am very very confused. 17:08:21 ... we should not change the separation unless we want to change who the editor is. I'm happy not to be the editor. 17:08:39 Schunter: I would like to close the queue and move on 17:08:48 John: Point is that if an UA is installed by the IT department then the preference entered would not be OK 17:08:54 q+ 17:09:06 I will re-open latera. 17:09:17 s/latera/later/ 17:09:18 Sidstamm: I don't see the first run statement. We should focus on what we want the protocol to do. There needs to be trust on both sides for this to work 17:09:22 How do we test that (IT dept)? 17:09:33 How can you determine "user preference" on shared devices? fielding's analysis would imply that DNT could not be persistent across sessions. 17:09:34 ... let's be overly prescriptive on what types of products are okay 17:09:38 rigo has joined #dnt 17:09:42 We have similar corner cases if I install and my spouse uses. 17:09:46 I trust web browsers vendor far more than the numerous UA "add-ons" and network intermediaries that are turning on DNT:1 today. 17:10:01 ... if the user make the choice during or after install it should be okay 17:10:01 q? 17:10:03 Or one kid sets a preference (using the dialogue) while my other kid then surfs. 17:10:06 q? 17:10:06 I think we cannot deal with the spouse issue -- and ought not to 17:10:14 ... having it set by a router or other device is not okay 17:10:15 qß 17:10:17 q? 17:10:20 q+ 17:10:22 ack ef 17:10:24 q+ 17:10:25 q+ 17:10:27 ack sid 17:10:32 npd has joined #dnt 17:10:33 Zakim, open queue 17:10:33 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is open 17:10:38 The cost to turn on DNT:1 (to "spray" the signal to quote Matthias) is amazingly low compared to the cost of websites and servers to implement their side of DNT. 17:10:39 q+ 17:10:48 q+ 17:10:50 The current spec clearly says "The user-agent might ask the user for their preference during start, up... 17:10:54 peterswire_ has joined #dnt 17:10:58 q+ 17:10:58 Efelten: What is justification for ruling out install time dialog when it is the user's choice? 17:11:01 schunter, this kid v. kid problem is not something we can address with this. It's currently not addressable via adChoices either if they share a browser 17:11:03 Peter and I think the 'limited to browsers' discussion is on the agenda for later, by the way 17:11:06 q? 17:11:07 I agree aleecia, just don't understand the logical difference between "at install" and "in the settings." I get the business rationale for it, but I don't understand why "at install" is any less of a user preference. 17:11:20 Schunter: I would like to permit this question as I have same question. 17:11:25 justin, each user has their own profile for any browser, including their cookies -- that is persistent 17:11:29 q- 17:11:35 I'm with you, Justin 17:11:35 (Stu discussed this on the last call.) 17:11:36 q? 17:11:53 Ack Chapell 17:12:09 I literally asked this precise question a week ago, and Stu gave us a long answer. 17:12:09 issue 194 is much more about compliance then about technical building blocks. On the call it was addressed that TPE:3 should be cleaned up, to not contain compliance elements. 17:12:27 q+ 17:12:32 Chapell: One path forward for simplification was to let the browser set the DNT setting. 17:12:34 q+ 17:12:36 q+ 17:12:50 ... one of the challenges doing this at install is the user may not be installer. 17:12:51 q+ 17:12:52 q- 17:12:59 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 17:13:02 (disagree with Alan, but will take it up later) 17:13:12 Dsinger: The discussion has been about UA when that isn't always the case. 17:13:20 fielding, I'd be curious to see what % of people use profiles on shared devices. I have never seen them used. 17:13:37 +q 17:13:46 Wileys: We need to discuss the introduction of signals and have the policy discussion this afternoon 17:13:48 Zakim, close queue 17:13:48 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is closed 17:13:50 we shouldn't limit to particular types of things, lets define the desired effect ("reflects user intent") and go from there. Software that doesn't introduce the signals right is non-compliant. We don't have to make a list of valid/invalid things -- we'll miss many. 17:13:51 +1 on shane's comment 17:14:27 Johnsimpson: I am amazed based on section 3 why we are having this discussion. 17:14:53 Fielding: First use is not install. The reason this is here is that by default DNT is not set 17:15:13 ... cannot have user set if value is set for user. 17:15:15 q? 17:15:17 What we have learned: someone who has talked about this for 2 years does not understand the text as it is. 17:15:36 This suggests the editors give it another shot to clarify the difference. 17:15:39 ack john 17:15:43 Could be all of half a sentence 17:15:45 Dsinger: systems often ask the user for setup values and may include DNT. This is okay, but IT department should not choose 17:15:49 What about a browser that is very often installed by users? 17:16:04 It is clear there is disagreement on this issue that needs to be worked out. We don't need to debate what the existing text means because there are still decisions that the group has waiting in the parking lot. Let's use this time productively. 17:16:12 Schunter: The underlying difficulty is that the software should ask the question if the user can respond. 17:16:12 Suggestion: take an action to update it. 17:16:19 q- 17:16:21 q- 17:16:26 q-- 17:16:33 Zakim, q- 17:16:33 I see rvaneijk, dwainberg, BerinSzoka on the speaker queue 17:16:39 I also have a question I'd like to ask before we move on 17:16:47 Shouldn't take long, but let's update based on John's very reasonable reading, so other people not in this room have a chance to understand. 17:16:50 Is there a justification for that position? 17:16:52 Lmastria: The draft framework indicates that DNT is not set during installation. 17:17:13 ... I believe first run is similar to install 17:17:35 bryan has joined #dnt 17:17:37 Zakim, close queue 17:17:37 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is closed 17:17:42 Zakim, open queue 17:17:42 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is open 17:17:51 rvaneijk: There should be a cross-reference or cleanup to indicate connections between TPE and compliance docs 17:18:12 There will certainly need to be final cleanup. 17:18:16 ... we should not over complicate the TPE and disentagle the compliance segments from TPE 17:18:31 [slide 6] 17:18:37 strider has joined #dnt 17:19:09 q? 17:19:10 Schunter: we assume there are UA that comply and other devices may send a signal. How do we know the difference 17:19:29 issue-194? 17:19:29 ISSUE-194 -- How should we ensure consent of users for DNT inputs? -- open 17:19:29 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/194 17:19:36 [slide 7] 17:19:44 ... a site needs to be able to do something if it feels it received an invalid setting 17:19:55 q- rvaneijk 17:20:31 ... there are UAs that will send the signal in compliance or out of compliance 17:20:47 ... how can a site tell if a signal was properly generated or noise? 17:20:57 BillScannell has joined #dnt 17:21:07 [slide 8] 17:21:38 BillScannell has joined #dnt 17:21:49 .. there are three alternatives. 3. Do nothing, rely on existing data, UA string or something else 17:22:24 ... 2 use an authenticated channel to send the signal 17:22:45 +q 17:22:58 +q 17:23:06 q- 17:23:07 ... 1 change the signal definition to determine how the signal was set. For example, adding a 'U' to indicate that user set value based on spec 17:23:45 q? 17:23:47 [dws] or we change the signals as we publish, so we can distinguish the historical UAs from those that actually read the spec 17:23:48 ... to make sure site is not overwhelmed by signals the site should be able to distinguish between valid signals and act accordingly 17:23:51 q? 17:23:51 +q 17:23:55 ack Ber 17:23:55 q? 17:24:04 +q 17:24:14 ack Wileys 17:24:18 BerinSzoka: Important to have compliance signals on both sides. Let's come back to that later 17:24:52 Proposal: "N" for non-browser 17:25:01 How will that work in practice? 17:25:06 q+ to ask why we need to distinguish the non-browser UA? 17:25:12 Wileys: With alternative 1. I would like to see the use of 'N' for non-UA device setting signal. That would tell us that something other than UA set value 17:25:17 Specifically, IE reads a registry setting from IE, or not from IE. 17:25:33 ... I think that would make it simpler and cleaner 17:25:34 q? 17:25:36 "f" for "framework-based UA/browser" 17:25:46 q+ 17:25:53 ack efelten 17:26:00 q+ 17:26:02 Wileys, maybe 1N or 0N, to clarify which signal that agent is setting? 17:26:21 how do you trust the UA string? are you going to limit DNT to a known set of UA headers? 17:26:21 Shane can you help me understand your proposal over IRC, or shall I add myself to the queue to ask how you imagine that would work? 17:26:35 2 Problems (A) Truly legacy signals and (B) things that try to send signals that appear valid 17:26:37 Efelten: Why are we ruling out non-browsers? We can't stop parties from misbehaving, just like we can't stop servers from sending something invalid 17:26:59 q? 17:27:02 q+ 17:27:04 Wileys: I'm not disagreeing with Efelten, I'm just saying that we should be able to know how the signal was set 17:27:14 q+ 17:27:35 -bilcorry 17:27:36 Schunter: The legacy problem is something that is easily solved by changing the signal. 17:27:43 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 17:27:54 ... Forged signals is something that we largely cannot solve 17:28:05 q? 17:28:13 ... I don't see how the protocol can solve this 17:28:32 ... we should be able to distinguish between legacy signals 17:28:37 ack jmayer 17:28:53 +1 to JC; we can't close this door without digital signatures and so on. We can orphan the legacy, which may be prudent... 17:29:02 q? 17:29:06 why would it considered invalid if the extension etc that set DNT could be proven to be serving user choice, just like any browser? 17:29:11 If a browser extension complies with all requirements, does it help if it adds an extra "N" to the DNT header? 17:29:25 jchester2 has joined #dnt 17:29:26 Jmayer: What solutions do people have in mind. Non-browser software that modifies DNT could be an extension, which have nearly unlimited ability 17:29:47 I think that the dialogue how to prevent forgers is one that is similar to a dialogue to prevent sites that pretend to follow DNT without doing so. 17:29:58 ... how would you prevent that. The other major way is via a proxy and similarly how would one stop a proxy from setting DNT 1. 17:30:02 q+ 17:30:07 ... There is not much one could do to stop it. 17:30:24 Jonathan - understood we cannot prevent (unfortunately) - looking to separate UA direct setting from in-direct setting through add-ons and 3rd party software packages. 17:30:26 I think Shane is suggesting *not* trying to prevent fraudulent signals 17:30:46 Schunter: We are not looking for a bulletproof solution, but swithching the signal will tell us if someone pretends to follow the spec 17:31:00 afowler has joined #dnt 17:31:02 Shane I'm listening, but how do you do that? 17:31:13 q? 17:31:17 q+ to suggest not adding new strings with reference to Ed's example running watch with web interface 17:31:24 ... If the browser states that it follows the spec then we should be able to see this and they will get into trouble 17:31:28 ack dan_auerbach 17:31:53 Dan_auerbach: Quick suggestion, to the extent is network intermediaries, https would prevent that 17:32:04 +q 17:32:23 ack d 17:32:28 Schunter: I agree that https would prevent modification of signals 17:32:50 Dsinger: Question to Wileys, what does the change in signal do for us 17:32:58 I prefer affirmative statements "I promise X". 17:33:03 ack dsinger 17:33:03 dsinger, you wanted to ask why we need to distinguish the non-browser UA? 17:33:09 Wileys: If I received an 'N' i can determine the source of the signal 17:33:17 The draft Framework seems clear that third parties could ignore N DNT signals. 17:33:32 ... we talked about sending an augment UA string, which would to be too heavy 17:33:57 ... the simpler signal helps me separate where the signal came from and who is lying. 17:33:59 shane, are you saying https won't work as a solution particularly for preventing inteference from network intermediaries? if so, why? 17:34:11 ... From there I can make a decision on how to respond 17:34:12 not sure that I understand what problem new signals are solving, regardless of new signals sent by UA, site may still disagree with how signal set based on existing data (for example, if it doesn't like signal set during first run) 17:34:24 q? 17:34:27 ack fielding 17:34:30 ... I may decide only to respond to UA set signals 17:34:34 They are lying if they send dnt: 1 while not following the user requirements, right? 17:34:36 q? 17:34:40 q+ 17:35:04 Fielding: The technical decision between a UA set the signal or not is difficult to determine 17:35:35 "I really mean it" :-) 17:35:45 ... I really want this to work, but using "i really mean it" pushes everyone to say "I really mean it" everyone pretening to be a UA 17:35:59 We may be constrained (by technical possibility) to only orphan the legacy (without solve the forgery problem). 17:36:27 ack rv 17:36:33 ... I cannot overemphasize enough that there is restriction to adoption on the server side and the more the UA side sends invalid signals adoption will be affected 17:36:37 q? 17:36:39 We have now heard from an editor of HTTP, a Princeton professor, Mozilla's security lead, and others that there isn't a viable technical solution here. Time to move on. 17:36:44 Amen to that but I doubt persuasion alone will suffice. there needs to be legal consequences to gaming the spec by sending non-compliant signals 17:36:53 +1 to fielding, it's on us to convince that it helps users not to send invalid dnt signals 17:37:12 +q to Roy also 17:37:18 I agree, Berin 17:37:25 Rvaneigk: Referring to DAA framework, the host controls what data is shared and to whom. Will the SafeFrame help protect the user from unwanted sharing? 17:37:37 Jonathan - we all agree there is no air-tight solution here - that's understood. I don't believe it harms the standard to have non-user agent string DNT setters to send a separate signal. Will some lie - yes! Will some tell the truth - yes. 17:37:50 Chris to think that over, thanks Chris 17:38:00 Aleecia: For a test signal we can say we can use old signal to say I am testing and new signal can be I am compliant 17:38:09 Aleecia: DNT:1 may be declared as "testing DNT" 17:38:27 Aleecia, kind of like an X- header that, when standardized, drops the X-? 17:38:35 so '1' on a UA is like '!' on the site-side; we are in pre-deployment. nice. then you switch to DNT:True or whatever we say. nice 17:38:36 ... Second point, as long as IE has a registry setting that anyone can set it will be a problem unless IE changes that 17:38:40 Problem (technical): Non-browsers can tweak registry to make browsers send dnt signals. 17:38:43 referring to IAB Safeframe as a possible solution? would like to hear more about that. (https://www.iab.net/safeframe) 17:38:52 rvaneijk, re your question to IAB about SafeFrame, can you please elaborate on your idea? Not sure I understand yet where you are going? 17:38:56 q? 17:39:02 ack aleecia 17:39:02 ... Does Microsoft have plans to have two different settings 17:39:08 ack aleecia 17:39:13 Is the aim to provide a hook for deceptive business practice litigation? That we could do (though unsure we should do). 17:39:18 Adrianba: We won't have two settings because we have one setting for us. 17:39:40 ... the purpose of the store is to store our setting and having a second value serves no purpose 17:39:44 WileyS, why would anyone ever send an N signal if no one is respecting those signals? I'd not necessarily averse to the signal, but trying to play out what will happen . . . 17:40:01 rvaneijk, SafeFrame uses a form of post message to communicate between the host and the 3rd party. 17:40:02 Jmayer, I think that is the aim. 17:40:03 Wileys: in response to question, many of modifications of signals happen in flight and not based on a registry setting 17:40:11 bryan has joined #dnt 17:40:32 ... AV and routers set the value on the line and we probably wont go to https tomorrow. 17:40:41 chris_IAB: and could carry the transmission of user preference, right? 17:40:45 Nick, then let's be honest about it. This is about a legally enforceable representation of compliance, not a technical limitation. 17:40:48 q? 17:40:56 ... using 'N' is not airtight, but we are attempting to add balance to reduce ability to game system 17:40:57 Zakim, close queue 17:40:57 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is closed 17:41:22 ... implementing code is not hard. Implementing work on the server side is hard. 17:41:31 q? 17:41:33 WileyS, OK, I understand now. 17:41:45 I don't think anyone is hiding that. Is there anything we can do to facilitate legal compliance/enforcement? 17:41:53 ack peterswire_ 17:42:15 it's not a lie if user choice is actually being expressed through the header, regardless of how sourced 17:42:30 Peterswire: Ship and dock scenario, ships have things to invest in and if it won't work they won't invest 17:42:37 +1 to Bryan 17:42:41 q- 17:42:42 ... is there a structure where we can encourage the investment. 17:43:16 ... Secondly, there is no airtight technical solution. If a commerce company makes it business lying on a massive scale, they are taking a risk 17:43:23 Bryan - the key question - is it a user choice? If I don't know who is setting the signal, then I can't tell. 17:43:25 Bryan, but you would agree that it's a lie if it wasn't a user's choice? 17:43:48 for the record, I am totally sympathetic to Shane's concern. But like JC, I can't see how to address it (apart from 'moving the goalposts' by changing the final signal) 17:43:52 q? 17:43:54 ... that is not a technical answer, but the muckiness of law gives a reason for there to be discipline in the system 17:43:55 ack rigo 17:43:55 rigo, you wanted to suggest not adding new strings with reference to Ed's example running watch with web interface 17:44:02 q- 17:44:23 Rigo: The cost for having another signal is too high compared to the gain that we get 17:44:36 q- 17:45:04 peterswire_ is right. gaming of the system is a concern and having non-tech solutions has to be part of the solution 17:45:07 ... We have to produce a future proof idea that addresses the web of things, I don't see how something other than 1, 0 or unset is useful. 17:45:28 Shane - all we need is a mechanism to tell who it setting the signal. That's something IETF could address, if needed. 17:45:30 How about 2, 3, unset. 17:45:30 ... on the server side we can use heuristics or baysian functions to analyze the signal 17:45:42 .. very low gain and high cost to adding signals 17:46:16 Lmastria, is there anything we can do to facilitate those legal / market measures? 17:46:33 nick - I would agree that a verifiable violation of user choice would be a lie. 17:46:36 Schunter: Firstly, are people are okay with changing the signal to find legacy signals? Only user agents that follow the rules can send a preference. 17:46:43 It's not enough to say you want enforceability. You need to explain how this proposal makes the system more enforceable. 17:47:20 .. Secondly, no solution is perfect. Shane wants to distinguish UA from other tools, and legacy tools from tools that follow spec. 17:47:23 when does new start? 17:47:28 Bryan, Lou, if we document that very clearly, as an industry consensus, that could help with FTC or lawsuits, right? 17:47:31 After first call. 17:47:40 ... We should creat an issue to address how to determine if UA foloow spec 17:47:47 efelten, enforceable towards user agents or sites? 17:48:12 Fielding: I would rather go down this right. I would want to determine if UA follows the spec. 17:48:27 I'm hearing two issues intertwined. 17:48:35 Rigo, the discussion here is about enforceability w.r.t. user agents; but similar principle applies on the server side. 17:48:36 ... If an intermediary always send a DNT 1 we may be able to find that out 17:48:44 -1 17:48:59 nick - i would hope, so, but IANAL. A clear indication of compliance expectation should be applicable to any implementation. 17:49:02 If we change the characters, then disregarding the legacy should be permitted. 17:49:05 Dsinger: what does the room think about changing the signal. Okay. 17:49:09 -1 17:49:13 +1 17:49:27 ... Hum on the negative indicates changing signal probably not helpful 17:49:38 ... maybe we can come up with better idea 17:49:57 Schunter: Should we take a break? 17:50:02 coffee :-) 17:50:08 I still think requiring the exception API to work for conformance would work 17:50:14 johnsimpson has left #dnt 17:50:33 Dsinger: Going to break Rigo will scribe 17:50:34 11:15 back. 17:50:47 -moneill2 17:53:27 Off to class, will be back for the afternoon. 17:54:08 In anticipation of the upcoming topics: I strongly object to the "D", "!", and "P" proposals as written. My thinking on "D" and "!" is on the mailing list, and I articulated my view on "P" earlier. 17:58:55 -Jonathan_Mayer 17:59:02 sidstamm has joined #dnt 18:13:34 q? 18:16:20 +Gregg_Vanderheiden 18:16:22 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 18:16:22 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 18:16:45 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 18:16:45 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 18:17:34 scribenick:rigo 18:17:41 justin has joined #dnt 18:17:47 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 18:18:10 paulohm has joined #dnt 18:18:12 schunter, are you on? We can't hear you. 18:18:13 aleecia has joined #dnt 18:18:15 NVM 18:18:17 mts: welcome back 18:18:23 ... no intro 18:18:31 ... slide [9] 18:18:49 afowler has joined #dnt 18:18:56 efelten has joined #dnt 18:19:03 ... reaction to unreliable signal, e.g preconfigured signal from a router. 18:19:34 ... my belief is that the signal is not conformant, site does not have to react 18:19:41 ... 3 options: 18:19:42 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 18:19:44 To clarify: the suggestion is that sites have the *option* to reject, or ignore, right? 18:19:49 ....a/ sending D back 18:19:53 fielding has joined #dnt 18:19:59 ....b/ saying nothing, not responding 18:20:16 ... c/ rather safe than sorry, apply DNT:1 18:20:23 q? 18:20:30 q+ 18:20:32 mts, these are the opinions I saw on the list 18:20:33 matthias - how do you know the signal is not conformant, that it was not set by the explicit choice of the user? 18:20:33 q+ 18:20:38 hwest has joined #dnt 18:20:40 Zakim, open queue 18:20:40 ok, schunter, the speaker queue is open 18:20:48 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 18:20:49 q+ 18:20:55 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 18:20:56 ed: your alternatives, the sites would have the option to ignore, or required? 18:21:02 To add a 4th option we have discussed: site can ask the user to confirm. 18:21:11 mts: the option, they can react on signals from routers 18:21:16 +1 to aleecia 18:21:27 q? 18:21:29 sidstamm has joined #dnt 18:21:29 So the site does not have to blindly accept, but can also make sure they do not ignore valid. 18:21:31 ... after determining that signal is unreliable, they can decide what to do with it 18:21:31 ack n 18:21:32 q+ 18:21:48 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 18:22:08 npdoty: d/ be silent on this, just not having feedback 18:22:21 q+ 18:22:36 ... signals should be so reliable that every signals will be respected 18:22:49 does anyone want a change to the document, or is this an exploration of where we are? 18:22:52 q? 18:22:52 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 18:22:58 q- 18:23:15 Is there anyone actually arguing in favor of Alternative 2? I thought there was universal agreement that was not viable? 18:23:25 amyc has joined #dnt 18:23:30 Brooks has joined #dnt 18:23:41 I agree that D is a useful signal for when you're not complying with a potentially unreliable signal 18:23:43 mts: take step back, protocol discussion. What should you do on the wire. You can feedback, redirect user, clarify the signal. First signal on the wire, what should the response say 18:23:46 a first party can clarify -- not so easy for a third party 18:23:49 q? 18:23:49 q? 18:23:53 ack aleecia 18:24:17 +q 18:24:33 q+ 18:24:35 aleecia: understand distinction, lets clarify, sending back "I'm not sure" and re-direct to disambiguate 18:24:44 aleecia, would that be implemented differently than "D"? 18:24:45 ack adr 18:24:47 Aleecia - 3rd parties would likely not have that option 18:24:53 jchester2 has joined #dnt 18:25:18 q- 18:25:35 We even indicate 409 as the status code? 18:25:47 q? 18:25:47 adrianba: common for protocol to have signal for error case, here signal sent in incorrect situation, dnt:73, currently D comes with URI that explains why it was rejected, seems like a reasonable thing to have 18:25:52 Jonathan at some point promoted Alternative 2 (AFAIR) 18:26:28 moneill2: option to reconfirm an unreliable signal, 18:26:41 schunter, I somehow doubt that jmayer is advocating that third parties could disregard signals deemed unreliable without feedback. 18:26:46 mts: if you reconfirm, it should reconfirm both ways 18:26:47 q? 18:26:50 ack moneill2 18:26:56 ack mon 18:27:16 mts: agreement that the UA should be told that something went wrong 18:27:17 q+ 18:27:31 q+ 18:27:32 Chapell has joined #DNT 18:27:40 ... not silently swallowing the signal is agreement. Nobody is for alternative 2 18:27:48 q+ 18:28:08 BillScannell has joined #dnt 18:28:10 q? 18:28:21 ... after telling UA 'something went wrong'. Now what behavior to assume, 0/1/unset? After assumption do we want to require sites to reconfirm? 18:28:35 q+ 18:28:35 q? 18:28:38 ack hefferjr 18:29:03 ack dsinger 18:29:06 hefferjr: third parties will not be able to reconfirm, Most websites will not allow that to happen 18:29:22 dsinger: we introduced this to have transparency 18:29:44 ... reason of disregarding. Not an invitation to disregarding signals 18:29:47 q+ 18:29:54 q+ 18:29:58 Is it possible with tk:D and an edit link to handle confirming signals? 18:30:01 ack fielding 18:30:04 ... concerned that we don't say anything 18:30:23 small correction to what I said: it is not that 3rd parties will not be able to reconfirm; 3rd parties will not be able to ask the USER to reconfirm. 18:31:00 [dws] is concerned we don't say that the compliance of "D" is indeterminate, and this is not an invitation to be capricious about what signals you respect and what you disregard 18:31:13 Similarily, user agents have the option to mitigate once they have been disregarded. 18:31:16 jeff_ has joined #dnt 18:31:34 q? 18:31:39 fielding: operating procedure we have is that we say in privacy policy what signals we support. That is reasonable. If user agent does not look at feedback, can't see that signal was rejected. No power to enforce against non-compliant signal 18:32:08 Justin: privacy policy saying "we don't accept safari" 18:32:08 to roy: we could say that this signal can only be used in response to non-compliant signals or under court order or similar duress 18:32:13 q- 18:32:21 If you're not complying with the spec, you don't have any requirements. 18:32:34 mts: if you disregard than you have to say so 18:32:58 fielding: protocol is saying disregard, explanation is in the policy 18:33:07 q? 18:33:11 ack rigo 18:33:18 the snag with silence is that the user won't be aware (can't be; they can't operate the logic of the privacy policy) 18:33:29 q? 18:33:37 Silence should not be an option. 18:34:17 right, users have no way of knowing which 3rd parties are on a page at a given time (reload, world changes) 18:34:36 Noncompliance with the spec will always be an option for implementers, of course. 18:34:43 q? 18:34:49 Ack ChrisPedigoOPA 18:35:11 I am saying that signal via privacy policy is reality -- "D" is an option for creating in-band transparency when the received protocol has failed. 18:35:28 RW: "D" is protocol, explanation in DAA code or privacy policy legally self binding 18:35:40 AAIsham has joined #dnt 18:35:41 can the context for the D be optional? 18:35:50 sid++ 18:36:07 q+ 18:36:11 ChrisPedigoOPA: not overload signal, default is probably biggest issue. 18:36:53 Anyone in the WG arguing against option 1? Matthias - can you please ask the room so it'll be possible to close this issue? 18:37:00 mts: people are feeling comfortable by having a signal back to UA 18:37:01 q? 18:37:02 Apologies, "Alternative" 1 18:37:32 sidstamm: D = disregard because something went wrong. Let's make context optional. 18:37:36 mts: good point 18:37:41 +1 to sid 18:37:47 Less confusing than no response. +1 18:37:47 Sid, why is it valuable to the UA? 18:37:54 +q 18:37:59 Marc, it gives us feedback 18:38:03 problem: define "clearly" 18:38:04 q? 18:38:05 +1 to Sid - context/explanation is optional 18:38:07 ack sidstamm 18:38:09 ... anybody having trouble with option 1? 18:38:14 +bilcorry 18:38:16 Marc, it's better than absence of reply 18:38:21 Mandatory D, optional explanation. 18:38:21 zakim, mute bilcorry 18:38:21 bilcorry should now be muted 18:38:23 if you define "clearly" in a way I agree with, I can agree with the rest, but that seems unlikely 18:38:28 Zakim, mute me 18:38:28 bilcorry was already muted, bilcorry 18:38:33 ChrisPedigoOPA: if disregard, will it be required to send D 18:38:40 mts: required to send D 18:38:48 q? 18:39:11 fielding: requiring D would be a thing for compliance, able to send is TPE 18:39:51 dan_auerbach: concerns about what unreliable signal means in practice 18:39:57 q+ 18:40:00 ack dan_auerbach 18:40:16 dsinger: there are many cases why you need a D signal 18:40:20 I suggest we are silent as to why you send D, but adopt the ability to send D 18:40:39 sounds like an action item to add to compliance? 18:40:40 ack johnsimpson 18:40:51 just in case we're still doing action items :-) 18:41:23 johnsimpson: are we saying that option 3 is off the table. 18:41:42 Agreement: (A) if you receive a incompliant signal, you may reject it by sending "D" 18:42:01 I think the question of 3 is Compliance (and I have suggested we just be silent) 18:42:09 fielding/dsinger about what is normal approach in protocols and how do they fail 18:42:20 I agree. 18:42:21 npd, you mean make it available but don't MUST it? 18:42:24 hober: you can see that they reject 18:42:34 But the TPE question is whether we should define the ability to disregard with a signal 18:42:38 dwainberg has joined #dnt 18:43:12 q+ 18:43:20 I think available is the only thing we can require, sidstamm, because entirely non compliant servers won't reply at all 18:43:24 fielding: under alternative 3 we would not implement DNT 18:43:44 dsinger: agreement on option 1 and figure out the details. 18:44:07 q? 18:44:10 mts: how to develop guidance for unreliable signals should be described be done in TCS 18:44:11 ack aleecia 18:44:47 aleecia: third parties putting in privacy policy is not an option as you don't know who they are 18:44:49 Isn't the D the response from the 3rd party? 18:44:51 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 18:45:12 mts: if IP address from third party, could i discover? 18:45:29 it seems unrealistic from a ux perspective to have every third party confirm every ie10 signal 18:45:32 fielding: they could check TSR before retrieving 18:45:49 I see two issues (a) what are the compliance rules around 'D' and (b) how does the user get an explanation (e.g. a URI, a privacy policy, and so on)? 18:46:12 My point is you need a response header, not "it's in a privacy policy" 18:46:14 Q+ 18:46:21 can we agree to accept D and push the design of the "optional context" to an issue? 18:46:45 Aleecia, I think alternative 1 is that agreement, yeah? 18:46:48 q? 18:46:51 mts: if you get request from address, you can discover via TSR where to retrieve the privacy policy 18:46:55 q+ 18:47:14 This is discussion of how to make 1 at all possible, and we still have issues with it, but this is one of two to solve 18:47:41 dsinger: 2 issues: compliance rules aroudn the D signal and how does the user clarity on why they received D to do immediate action 18:47:43 q- 18:47:43 as compliance co-chair, I'm glad to have those items added to our list 18:47:47 (The other is: uh oh, a user set DNT:1 under IE 9, upgraded to IE 10, and is being ignored. That's lawsuit central and make my head throb.) 18:48:31 fielding: only one place currently where user can receive human readable response is privacy policy. 18:49:09 ... anything regarding description of privacy handling is a legal document. And have legal review. That's why we put it in privacy policy 18:49:41 either way of those can work 18:49:47 If "D" is sent, the the "policy" member of the WKR should be mandatory. 18:49:56 either Matthias' mandatory, or the optional 18:50:15 q? 18:50:21 Dominique is representing eBay. 18:50:43 Dominique_: 183 class actions against privacy policies because criticized by FTC 18:51:00 q? 18:51:06 dsinger: yes even fragment id in the privacy policy would help (40 pages down) 18:51:15 ack rigo 18:51:28 we consider and allow for ways to get the disclosure outside of the privacy policy 18:51:30 mts: keep D signal and iron out subissues? 18:51:33 q? 18:52:17 issue: compliance requirements about when disregarding a signal is allowed 18:52:17 Created ISSUE-196 - Compliance requirements about when disregarding a signal is allowed; please complete additional details at . 18:52:37 Lmastria_DAA: David's quesiton on suplemental notice. DAA is doing supplemental notice. There was a conversation about privacy policy. We go beyond. For data collected online cross site. ICAN notice 18:52:38 DNT will apply to more than your companies, but if you have best practices to point to, that's great! 18:52:54 issue: how do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received? 18:52:54 Created ISSUE-197 - How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received?; please complete additional details at . 18:52:59 issue-196: for Compliance 18:52:59 Notes added to ISSUE-196 Compliance requirements about when disregarding a signal is allowed. 18:53:33 fielding: object to create ISSUE-196 18:53:45 issue-197: might already be covered, in TPE, by existing text 18:53:45 Notes added to ISSUE-197 How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received?. 18:53:53 if someone wants to fix typos in my issue titles, I welcome that 18:54:06 issue-196: Roy wants to re-title 18:54:06 Notes added to ISSUE-196 Compliance requirements about when disregarding a signal is allowed. 18:54:33 mts: going through current issues: slide [10] 18:55:15 tara has joined #dnt 18:55:21 mts: ISSUE-112 Cookie matching rules 18:55:25 issue-112? 18:55:25 ISSUE-112 -- How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? -- pending review 18:55:25 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112 18:56:00 mts: important to provide text. If you complain you can only do so by providing test 18:56:05 s/test/text/ 18:56:27 mts ... explaining issue-112 18:56:30 Optionally, if you use the domain parameter 18:56:40 If you don't, its fully qualified 18:57:00 mts: if ok, will send reconfirm before closing. 18:57:11 no questions on issue-112 18:57:19 issue-147? 18:57:19 ISSUE-147 -- Transporting Consent via the Exception / DNT mechanisms -- raised 18:57:19 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/147 18:57:21 112, no objections in the room 18:57:29 Do we need a service provider flag? 18:57:32 issue-137? 18:57:32 ISSUE-137 -- Does hybrid tracking status need to distinguish between first party (1) and outsourcing service provider acting as a first party (s) -- pending review 18:57:32 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137 18:57:55 Controllers, not same party, right? 18:58:05 -phone disconnection- 18:58:08 Zakim, who is on the phone? 18:58:08 On the phone I see [Apple.a], schunter, Gregg_Vanderheiden, bilcorry (muted) 18:58:13 Zakim, drop [Apple.a] 18:58:13 [Apple.a] is being disconnected 18:58:14 -[Apple.a] 18:58:16 q? 18:58:16 mts: current flag would only work with same-party element in well-known resource 18:58:24 q+ 18:58:29 Matthias, we're working on it 18:58:40 I thought silence means agreement ;-) 18:58:50 talk really fast! 18:58:52 +[Apple] 18:58:54 :-) 18:59:26 q? 18:59:30 ack rigo 18:59:44 q? 18:59:56 NPD: It is same-party (not controller) 19:00:02 q+ to distinguish 'as a matter of course' from 'ever' 19:00:38 dsinger, you wanted to distinguish 'as a matter of course' from 'ever' 19:00:39 They can signal tk:1 19:01:08 Q+ 19:01:14 +1 to dsinger, plus also non-browser UAs 19:01:44 How does this work for service providers to 3rd parties? 19:01:52 issue-196? 19:01:52 ISSUE-196 -- What compliance requirements apply when a signal has been disregarded? -- raised 19:01:52 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/196 19:02:28 q+ 19:02:49 When do you need me to once again say we need a SP flag? 19:02:58 Because I can repeat myself. Again. 19:02:59 q? 19:03:00 I think Tk: 1 is a clear response 19:03:05 Q- 19:03:05 ack npd 19:03:07 Great, ok: 19:03:09 q+ 19:03:10 ack dwainberg 19:03:11 dsinger: need to clarify that the service provider flag is possible, will provide text for clarification 19:03:35 D.wainberg: how does that work for 3rd parties 19:03:46 Tk: 3, with a controllers element in the TSR 19:03:52 dsinger: have to refresh my memory and write it up 19:03:58 +1 to nick 19:04:49 mts: service provider will perhaps not be visible to end users... 19:05:01 q? 19:05:05 npd: no objection from the room 19:06:04 q+ 19:06:09 ack a 19:06:19 aleecia: say the things that I always said, service provider is not a first party, need transparency, invisible parties are a deal breaker, can deal with them lightly. Not fair. 19:06:37 ack fielding 19:06:49 Roy and I could write each other's points :-) 19:06:56 mts: aleecia has sustained her objections 19:06:56 Yes. 19:07:04 Next? 19:07:05 Roy, too. 19:07:08 fielding: sustaining objection against the objection 19:07:11 We must be as bad as things in the past? 19:07:26 That's absurd. 19:07:29 Q+ to plead for write-up 19:07:44 mts: not ready to close issue-137 19:08:05 I'll take that as a reasonable next step, without withdrawing my objection here. 19:08:10 But I think that moves forward. 19:08:13 dsinger: wait for my writeup before. Roy has it mostly covered, but not visible 19:08:44 Maybe we can then run though the decision policy on this? Call for Objections, etc. 19:08:48 action: dsinger to explore how service providers (to 1st and 3rd parties) can provide transparency, and work through the use cases 19:08:48 Created ACTION-400 - Explore how service providers (to 1st and 3rd parties) can provide transparency, and work through the use cases [on David Singer - due 2013-05-14]. 19:09:03 Issue-152? 19:09:03 ISSUE-152 -- User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent -- pending review 19:09:03 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/152 19:09:15 mts: aleecia, not being able to express SP, but requiring as a MUST to have SP declared. But have at least the option to do so. 19:09:33 mts: objections against optional service providers 19:09:43 It serves a useful purpose :-) 19:10:03 By that logic, there is no need for transparency to 3rd parties of any type 19:10:15 We do not have data controllers in the US 19:10:22 Issue-152? 19:10:22 ISSUE-152 -- User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent -- pending review 19:10:22 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/152 19:10:26 dsinger: heh 19:10:37 "It's none of their business" where their data goes? 19:10:47 issue-152? 19:10:47 ISSUE-152 -- User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent -- pending review 19:10:47 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/152 19:10:48 We're not going to agree Roy... 19:10:50 fielding: does not serve any purpose. As long as the controller is identified that is sufficient. Not possible to express how many service providers are involved in every request is impossible and beyond what we could do 19:11:02 mts: so waiting for David's text 19:11:06 I think it very much is users' business who collects, uses, processes their data. 19:11:13 issue-152? 19:11:13 ISSUE-152 -- User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent -- pending review 19:11:13 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/152 19:11:20 Aleecia -- if the website is using a service provider, their data is managed/used/controlled by that website. If the user needs to do anything with that data, they need to go to the website (controller) 19:11:21 If we cannot even agree on that after two years, well, that explains a lot 19:11:40 Vinay -- we don't have controller liability in the US 19:11:48 it's not how our legal structure works 19:12:03 and w3c cannot shift legal liability 19:12:10 but there are (in most cases, and we're including it in the spec) to require a contract 19:12:19 which brings legal liability to comply with the terms outlined in the contract 19:12:20 mts: we must require UA to always be clear about signaling UI for out of band consent. Currently optional 19:12:20 q? 19:12:24 q- 19:12:27 Q+ 19:12:35 ack jo 19:12:59 but does not shift all liability. Also, call me crazy, but I'd rather resolve things other than via lawsuits. 19:13:02 johnsimpson: seems we have in TPE we have the ability to send C. 19:13:31 npd: is about must signal in UI 19:13:41 Users should have visibility. SPs are just third parties. 19:13:45 dsinger: puzzled we have to disclose this one thing and not everything 19:13:55 I think we could have long closed 152. 19:14:27 (not that I know of) 19:14:36 Issue-153? 19:14:36 ISSUE-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- pending review 19:14:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153 19:14:37 mts: johnsimpson is still right if we still require "C" to be sent. If a site uses OBC, it should say so to the user, and wonder if we have that in the compliance spec 19:14:38 aleecia, if that were true there would not be a category for service provider and requirements (like siloing) that one would have to obey to be a service provider. You can't have it both ways. 19:14:44 issue 195? 19:14:57 issue-195? 19:14:57 ISSUE-195 -- Flows and signals for handling out of band consent -- pending review 19:14:57 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195 19:14:59 Roy, I'd be fine with killing SP as a different class. 19:14:59 ... similar to D signal, compliance guidance on OBC 19:15:34 peterswire_: if this is something we have to do in compliance 19:15:40 Agree, 195 is relevant, consent signal back to the user has otherwise been long settled. 19:16:16 dsinger: if you have consent to signal it 19:16:37 justin: there is an existing task for justin and dsinger 19:16:44 dsinger: justin is taking the lead 19:17:03 mts: can we close issue-152 19:17:10 npd: no objections 19:17:17 issue-153? 19:17:17 ISSUE-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- pending review 19:17:17 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153 19:18:17 I might check when you send your email that we have the right language already in 153 19:18:19 mts: network tools and registry tools.. we do not want those to interfere, this is now discussed in issue-195, so want to close 153 19:18:29 => no objections 19:18:29 issue-167? 19:18:29 ISSUE-167 -- Multiple site exceptions -- pending review 19:18:29 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/167 19:18:50 q+ to suggest 'postponed' rather than closed 19:18:52 q? 19:18:57 q+ 19:18:59 mts: explaining issue. Shane was not happy but could live with it 19:19:32 q- 19:19:43 q+ 19:19:47 Wileys: discussion in cambridge, who does the weight to process the multi-site processing. Currently in iframes, we will figure that out in CR 19:19:48 q+ 19:19:58 Great, close for now, and ask for implementation experience 19:20:12 dsinger: we should postpone 19:20:16 BerinSzoka_ has joined #DNT 19:20:20 q+ 19:20:25 ack ds 19:20:25 dsinger, you wanted to suggest 'postponed' rather than closed 19:20:37 q- 19:20:40 last call does not require all issues closed 19:20:47 q? 19:20:52 mts: want to close it 19:21:06 ack adr 19:21:37 ack pete 19:21:37 adrianba: process lawyering aside, add a comment to what Wileys said. In Boston we agreed that it could be part of a larger solution, but wanted to stabilize the spec 19:21:38 Incidentally, the idea of "let's try to implement it and come back" sounds like a very helpful approach. Take note: I'm violently agreeing with Shane's approach. 19:21:47 q? 19:22:00 +1 to that. I think it's fine to say "we don't know how to handle this", and revisit as we actually move to last call. 19:22:00 I hope this doesn't change Shane's mind :) 19:22:24 peterswire_: question of macy's having a page on facebook. Muti-site on who is first party, multiple first parties 19:22:52 You could imagine using this for a series of sites operated by the same pair of first parties, but it's not so different. 19:23:04 +q 19:23:32 mts: this is about multiple first parties on the site. so orthogonal. Calling exception API for 5000 uris? is there a short cut. Haven't found a way. Not multiple first parties on one site 19:23:33 q? 19:23:34 ack M 19:23:55 Issue-195? 19:23:55 ISSUE-195 -- Flows and signals for handling out of band consent -- pending review 19:23:55 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195 19:24:08 moneill2: you can have one shared iframe, probably best left to CR and implementation, refine it in implementations 19:24:17 We handle normal agreement with +1 :-) 19:24:23 mts: close issue-167 19:24:31 issue-155? 19:24:31 ISSUE-155 -- Remove the received member from tracking status -- closed 19:24:31 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/155 19:24:44 issue-195? 19:24:44 ISSUE-195 -- Flows and signals for handling out of band consent -- pending review 19:24:44 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195 19:25:16 mts: text written last week? 19:25:16 q? 19:25:31 q? 19:25:40 q+ 19:25:47 We *are* going to stop at 12:30 for lunch, aren't we? 19:26:10 dsinger: don't understand. If you have OBC you have to signal it 19:26:19 fielding: this is the P - issue 19:27:05 I have a clarification, but we decided it's appropriate for the compliance spec. 19:27:15 mts: don't need to discuss, people need to discuss issue 2.5.7 19:27:23 q- 19:27:39 agree with Matthias, I proposed silence already on the list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Apr/0202.html 19:27:58 q? 19:28:02 +mecallahan 19:28:11 mts: will not close this issue 19:28:17 good one, Ed 19:28:31 then let's stop 19:28:33 no 19:28:40 mts: now discussion of section 6 of draft framework probably too longto start 19:29:12 peterswire_: talked about this yesterday afternoon, talk about it this afternoon, e.g. UA vs browser 19:29:12 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 19:29:32 ... how to handle split between TPE / TCS and who does what 19:29:48 mts: suggest to go lunch for now 19:29:50 +1 to matthias and rob that silence on OOBC might be fine 19:29:50 +1 19:30:01 johnsimpson has left #dnt 19:30:05 lunchbreak 19:30:20 when do we reconvene? 19:30:21 scribenick:npd 19:30:47 -mecallahan 19:31:03 Reconvene in 90 minutes. 19:31:30 @npd, thanks 19:31:46 -bilcorry 19:31:55 -Gregg_Vanderheiden 19:31:59 Zakim, mute [Apple] 19:31:59 [Apple] should now be muted 19:32:29 sidstamm_ has joined #dnt 19:33:27 Zakim, who is making noise? 19:33:29 zakim, who is on the phone? 19:33:29 On the phone I see schunter, [Apple] (muted) 19:33:32 zakim, drop schunter 19:33:32 schunter is being disconnected 19:33:33 -schunter 19:33:34 zakim, drop apple 19:33:34 [Apple] is being disconnected 19:33:41 npdoty, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (19%) 19:33:43 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has ended 19:33:43 Attendees were bilcorry, Jonathan_Mayer, moneill2, schunter, multitudes, [Apple], Gregg_Vanderheiden, mecallahan 20:00:55 prestia has joined #dnt 20:00:58 robsherman has joined #dnt 20:01:37 afowler has joined #dnt 20:09:51 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 20:10:09 vinay has joined #dnt 20:22:59 johnsimpson has left #dnt 20:40:44 bryan has joined #dnt 20:51:02 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has now started 20:51:09 +[Apple] 20:52:19 npdoty has joined #dnt 20:52:50 afowler has joined #dnt 20:54:10 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 20:55:43 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 20:56:38 ? 20:58:28 fielding has joined #dnt 20:58:29 +[IPcaller] 20:58:41 Zakim, who is on the phone? 20:58:41 On the phone I see [Apple], [IPcaller] 20:58:42 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 20:58:42 +moneill2; got it 20:59:00 jchester2 has joined #dnt 20:59:04 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 20:59:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 20:59:14 neat trick 20:59:34 + +1.917.846.aaaa 20:59:56 Yianni has joined #DNT 21:00:27 Joanne has joined #DNT 21:01:07 Zakim, please choose a scribe 21:01:07 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.917.846.aaaa 21:01:12 Zakim, please choose a scribe 21:01:12 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose moneill2 21:01:14 paulohm has joined #dnt 21:01:14 Zakim, please choose a scribe 21:01:14 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.917.846.aaaa 21:01:21 aleecia has joined #dnt 21:01:37 scribenick: npdoty 21:01:43 John Callas hear to talk about security 21:01:55 financial auditing discussion 21:02:08 could be room for more parking lot discussion this afternoon 21:02:24 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 21:02:29 tara has joined #dnt 21:02:35 Nick, I can scribe 21:02:40 scribenick: Yianni 21:03:07 Peter: Dan wanted fo follow up with the case of unique ID cookies, got in touch with John Callas 21:03:19 ...the use of unique ID cookies for cybersecurity and fraud permitted use 21:03:33 ? 21:03:42 John Callas: I should go to questions a little bit 21:03:52 ...value of cookies for a unique identifier 21:03:58 ...they do not have a lot of main use for it 21:04:12 ...I have seen from bad actors that they are using sophisticated malware 21:04:19 susanisrael has joined #dnt 21:04:22 jmayer has joined #dnt 21:04:32 ...actively adapting what they are doing. Organized like a business 21:04:44 .structure similar to any other software business 21:04:56 ...against an attacker like that, a unique ID does not provide useful information 21:05:01 ...it tracks the good guys 21:05:20 ...bad guys delete them, remove them, swap them, occasionally send a spam message from grandma's computer 21:05:38 ...occasionaly does one bit of click fraud, take a legitimate users cookie then hand it back 21:06:02 robsherman has joined #dnt 21:06:03 ...on receiving end, you do not get much unique information from a unique id that is useful to track them down 21:06:05 q+ 21:06:20 Shane: Our security team looks at slightly differently 21:06:24 prestia has joined #dnt 21:06:33 ...attempts to use unique identifiers in different ways can be a signal 21:06:42 efelten has joined #dnt 21:06:43 ...can be differentiated from a normal use pattern 21:06:57 ...sometime the identifier is a key signal in differentiating against normal traffic 21:07:13 John Callas: anything you can do to identify a bad actor is good 21:07:14 Brooks has joined #dnt 21:07:18 peterswire has joined #dnt 21:07:22 q? 21:07:25 q? 21:07:29 Shane: Just one signal to identify bad actor 21:07:33 BillScannell has joined #dnt 21:07:42 John Callas: Is a unique ID useful for security, not very 21:07:48 ...not saying not at all 21:07:55 The question on the table is whether unique IDs are proportiate, given the fact that unique IDs are not very useful for security ! 21:07:59 q+ 21:08:03 you would not need it to be a true unique identifier. Low entropy mult digit would do 21:08:08 Shane: In the battle of security, ever increasing arms race, any incremental value is helpful 21:08:13 helpfull is not the same as necessary 21:08:31 ...is it an important or critical element of overall picture, leaning yes 21:08:46 what surfaces in this q&a is that the underlying problem isn't clear 21:08:47 ...just a matter of degree, very not very, but anything that helps is important 21:08:57 q? 21:08:59 justin has joined #dnt 21:08:59 ack fielding 21:09:02 prestia_ has joined #dnt 21:09:20 robsherman1 has joined #dnt 21:09:33 so long duration UIDs not necessary 21:09:48 hwest has joined #dnt 21:09:52 Roy: agrees with Shane, most common use of cookie is not the identifier, does not catch the most sophisticated but catches easy things 21:10:01 ack jmayer 21:10:10 Chapell has joined #DNT 21:10:16 Mayer: if a cookie is transmitted from a server, could that be used in an anti fraud? 21:10:22 ...does that have any value? Yes 21:10:22 moneil2, correct, depending on what you mean by long duration 21:10:34 ...If a cookie has been set by the user, you could read that user 21:10:40 <24hrs 21:10:54 ...can you perspectively cookie a user for security? are you suggesting that is neccesary? 21:11:02 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 21:11:06 Shane: What do you mean by perspective? 21:11:13 s/perspective/prospective/ 21:11:39 -moneill2 21:11:42 cannot hear 21:11:49 Mayer: what do I mean by prospective. Adversary may swap cookies. You could keep those cookies for fraud prevention 21:11:56 q? 21:12:14 +??P2 21:12:21 who joined? 21:12:22 ...User turns on DNT:1 and don't and cookies set (no adversary), questioning the value of dropping the cookie because it may be valuable later down the road 21:12:22 +q 21:12:28 Zakim, who is on the phone? 21:12:28 On the phone I see [Apple], +1.917.846.aaaa, ??P2 21:12:31 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 21:12:31 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 21:12:42 JC has joined #DNT 21:12:50 zakim, ??P22 is probably moneill2 21:12:50 sorry, tlr, I do not understand your question 21:12:59 zakim, ??P2 is probably moneill2 21:12:59 +moneill2?; got it 21:13:01 Peter: permitted uses in compliance spec, permitted use to take action for anti-fraud and cybersecurity 21:13:16 ...should there be a unique ID cookie for DNT:1? 21:13:22 Zakim, who is on the phone? 21:13:22 On the phone I see [Apple], +1.917.846.aaaa, moneill2? 21:13:30 Zakim, drop aaaa 21:13:30 +1.917.846.aaaa is being disconnected 21:13:32 - +1.917.846.aaaa 21:13:33 ...assertion by Mayer, is this cookie for DNT:1 users a very low security value 21:13:54 ...if that is true, then use of cookie ID would not be that important for security? 21:14:15 + +1.917.846.aabb 21:14:20 amyc has joined #dnt 21:14:24 q? 21:14:32 ...then unique ID cookies, would not be need for the permitted use? 21:14:45 q+ 21:14:47 q 21:14:52 q+ 21:14:57 ...for click fraud, it may be that unique ID cookie would not be that much help. So that could change how we view permitted uses 21:15:07 Shane: core premise of moving to idealist world 21:15:07 i switched my mike off, sorry 21:15:13 ...unqiue IDs in cookies do help 21:15:24 ...could discuss efficacy, but it is a net positive 21:15:47 ...with understanding that, then questions becomes, why wouldn't you immediately turn on DNT:1 21:15:54 ...you just gave yourself an edge in that battle 21:16:01 q? 21:16:03 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 21:16:06 ack Wileys 21:16:07 ack wileys 21:16:08 +q response to the question 21:16:12 John Callas: want to make a privacy friendly system, and one that is good for security 21:16:21 q+ jmayer to respond to the question 21:16:23 ...does it justify tagging everyone? 21:16:23 q- response 21:16:26 Roy, I'm trying to understand the point you raised. 21:16:36 Zakim, who is on the phone? 21:16:36 On the phone I see [Apple], moneill2?, +1.917.846.aabb 21:16:41 ...for security purposes, you could do something else that is as or more effective 21:16:50 I think you were saying what matters is if cookies can be set & read, rather than the content of the cookie. Is that correct? 21:16:53 now we are talking, security can be done in other ways, that are more effective. 21:17:05 ...If you saw something that was security related, you set on an alarm, I have far less problem with tagging 21:17:10 tagging everyone is not proportionate. 21:17:20 ...An adaptive thing that uses cookies for security pruposes is a reasonable thing to do 21:17:26 ...works much better then tagging everyone 21:17:33 q+ 21:17:37 who's calling from NY? 21:17:40 Zakim, drop aabb 21:17:40 +1.917.846.aabb is being disconnected 21:17:42 - +1.917.846.aabb 21:18:16 + +1.917.846.aacc 21:18:40 New caller, please id 21:18:44 zakim, drop aacc 21:18:44 +1.917.846.aacc is being disconnected 21:18:46 - +1.917.846.aacc 21:18:52 dwainberg has joined #dnt 21:18:57 q? 21:19:01 ack ChrisPedigoOPA 21:20:26 Really hard to have this conversation in public (or even minuted) 21:20:38 you could use localStorage, but that would need JS to execute and can be detected 21:21:21 q- 21:21:25 justin has joined #dnt 21:22:27 Just to get it in the notes: some participants from the advertising industry are presently chortling. How professinal. 21:22:34 s/professinal/professional/ 21:22:42 ack Chris_IAB 21:23:54 q? 21:24:47 Yianni has joined #DNT 21:24:57 Jon Callas: Get some people to turn off ad blockers 21:25:09 +q 21:25:25 Joanne has joined #DNT 21:25:27 Chris: you are in a world in a black and white scenario, we want to do things like security and fraud protection 21:25:34 ...we need a way to track bad actors 21:25:42 ...back to what is the definition of tracking 21:25:53 rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt 21:26:04 ...if consumers understand that they can still track to stop bad actors that becomes part of the definition of do not track 21:26:13 q+ 21:26:34 Chris: not setting cookies for security reasons, set cookies to operate business, and cookies are used for security and fraud 21:26:41 any crim would purge their cookies anyway 21:26:43 John Callas: okay with setting cookies for security purposes 21:27:10 Note: John Callas stated he'd be okay with setting cookies with unique IDs for security purposes (to keep the full statementin context) 21:27:21 Peter: Chris Pedigo raised this point, not discussing overall removal of permitted use of cybersecurity 21:27:24 s/statementin/statement in 21:27:40 ...there is a side piece of unique cookies, and whether they would a big or small hit on securities 21:27:50 zakim, who is on the phone? 21:27:50 On the phone I see [Apple], moneill2? 21:27:53 ...may be a small hit on security because anyone can block cookies 21:27:55 +q 21:27:58 Q? 21:28:14 ack jmayer 21:28:17 ...facially plausible that unqiue id cookie part may be very different from how it looked in prior statements 21:28:30 Mayer: it sounded like cookies were of limited value for security 21:28:34 zakim, who is on the phone? 21:28:34 On the phone I see [Apple], moneill2? 21:28:39 ...some interpreted what you said as the opposite of that view 21:29:00 John Callas: I find prospectively setting a cookie ironic or counterintuitive 21:29:11 Marc_ has joined #dnt 21:29:13 q? 21:29:28 ...if you saw behavior that warranted tracking, if you had cookies as part of you system, that seems reasonable 21:29:31 ack jmayer 21:29:31 jmayer, you wanted to respond to the question 21:29:38 ...part of security system that you do in tracking down the bad guys 21:29:46 ...incident response is a good way to put it 21:30:10 Mayer: Maybe it would helpful in framing thinking as security people think 21:30:40 Important to note Unique IDs in cookies are helpful in discovery - not only tracking - so all discovery value would be loss with only setting cookies once a user has been deemed "suspect" and then setting a cookie. 21:30:56 ...from that perspective, cookies are easy to delete and swap. Do Not Track are no worse out that current opt out cookies 21:31:21 ...anti-virus get rid of cookies, and lots of ther reasons cookies get deleted (up to 30% of users do not have cookies) 21:31:48 ...there are all sorts of tracking technologies that are part of a more robust incident response 21:31:56 q+ 21:32:06 John Callas: we will do tracking in a certain way for an incident response is reasonable 21:32:11 q+ 21:32:15 q+ 21:32:20 Mayer: if and why do industry folks have a different view? 21:32:38 Peter: one, it would be helpful, for a version of what Jonathan just said 21:32:50 ...second, reason to discuss this in not an open discussion 21:33:06 ...offline we could have a discussion for things that are not appropriate for public discussion 21:33:16 Jeff Chester: I agree with Jonathan 21:33:26 ack jche 21:33:36 ...I'm disappointed, I want to hear more from industry, given what we have just heard from John 21:33:38 q+ 21:34:01 ...spirit of this meeting is to move away from polorization. I'd like to hear about other ideas and thoughts 21:34:28 ChrisM: when talking about security we use every means available 21:34:37 ...we would be taking a step back if we did not use cookies 21:34:46 ack Chris_IAB 21:34:55 ...we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect our uses, part of that is using the information that we gather to protect them 21:35:08 Do you have a fiduciary obligation to respawn cookies using HTML cookies? 21:35:18 ...the gentleman said that if you take away cookies, you would use other methods, which I agree, we currently use other methods 21:35:37 q- 21:35:37 John Callas: it is hard to say a piece of information for security purposes, it is all useful 21:35:58 ...can you replace this one item with something else that gives as much or more security than a unique ID, I could do that 21:36:13 ...I would get as good or better security 21:36:22 CHrisM: How would you get better security? 21:36:47 John Callas: I do not want to design the system right here and now, unique is already in the hands of bad actors to use 21:37:02 q- 21:37:06 ...it is a public bit of information and attackers are free to set own cookies for own purposes 21:37:20 ack aleecia 21:37:20 ...part of mine it's not that useful, attackers can use as a weapon 21:37:44 interesting article on fraud detection http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ebay-worked-fbi-put-top-120500693.html 21:37:48 Aleecia:I had a couple things 21:38:00 ...not talking about security for first parties, we are not talking about keeping users safe 21:38:09 ...just talking about third parties only 21:38:14 q+ 21:38:24 3rd parties are equally interested in looking to protect against injection, malware, take overs, drive bys, etc. 21:38:28 ...anything that is a first party this is not an issue around security, this is a smaller scope problem that we pretent it is 21:38:36 ...we are talking about view fraud and a couple other things 21:38:52 UIDs must not be shared though (if DNT set to 1st party) 21:39:01 ...this is for Roy, if I understood Roy correctly, they need to set cookies to see how cookies are set and read, rather than the content of cookies 21:39:13 ...I wanted to understand that, and if that is what Roy was saying 21:39:40 Roy: not unique to Adobe and may not be what Adobe do 21:39:50 ...most high end security monitoring is by third parties 21:40:02 ...first parties do not have vision to distinguish bots from users 21:40:16 ...what you are looking for are patterns to distinguish bots from humans 21:40:29 ...over time bots are becoming more sophisticated and have longer conversation 21:40:42 ...eventually does something that does not behave as a user 21:40:47 ...third parties are doing this monitoring 21:41:05 ...this looks like a 70% chance of an attack, third parties do not have definitive answer 21:41:08 q? 21:41:13 ...websites do not have access to that same data 21:41:28 ...we do not expect that third party to be adhearing to that DNT signal 21:41:51 Roy: it is happening for security purposes 21:41:59 Aleecia: that is already breaking do not track 21:42:06 q? 21:42:08 Peter: security vendors who look accross sites 21:42:39 John Callas: when you hit a threshold, you are raising the quesiton is this fraudulent, then using a cookie 21:42:42 q+ 21:42:51 ...now its a unique ID that has raised some flags 21:43:08 Roy: means of identifying if they are a bad actor is the behavior on normal cookie 21:43:14 ...those all add into patterns 21:43:25 ...yes there are potential ways to delete use of cookies in some context 21:43:30 q? 21:43:38 ...under normal operating procedure that is how you do security detection right now 21:43:42 I don't think we have any exception in the current draft for first parties to share data with third parties for security purposes 21:43:43 q+ 21:43:52 ...what we are saying is that we are not changing those regardless of DNT 21:44:09 Peter: how much does unique ID cookie contribute to the pattern? 21:44:37 Mayer: Roy is discussing, there are certain companies, third parties, that are in the business of providing security services 21:44:46 tracking via tracing IP addresses though the ISP (to get a crim) is different from tracking everone using UIDs 21:44:49 ...we have talked about having an exemption for companies like that. 21:45:07 ...that is very different from the conversation we are having thus far about third parties providign security services for themselves 21:45:14 ... though there might be a lot of people who think we need to adjust First Party Compliance to allow stated business purposes, which might include sharing security-related data 21:45:16 ...as opposed you are a security company hired by first paty websites 21:45:23 ...a seperate discussion 21:45:39 ...line between prospectively setting cookie or looking at cookies already set 21:45:48 ...if a browser sends a coookie, there might be value 21:45:50 q- 21:45:57 ...discussing value of a cookie when there isn't one 21:46:19 strider has joined #dnt 21:46:34 a pseodomised UID - I like it 21:46:41 i thought we had discussed precise issue of security service providers as part of permitted uses discussion, where we discussed ability to use data across sites for security purposes 21:46:47 John Callas: you have cookie with field with unique identifier, may put something in the field for a specific incident 21:47:19 Roy: no one tracks you for more than 2 weeks for security, retention area we could work on. Just turning off cookies doesn't work 21:47:31 Recap, clarifying point 1: We're not talking about outsourced first-party security services right now. That should be a separate ISSUE. Clarifying point 2: The question here is whether setting unique IDs has marginal value, and if so, how much. We're not debating collection of cookies that have been set/modified by a user. 21:47:56 Chris: question for John, trying to understand when you said earlier that you could find other means to track bad actors. What other means are there that are not tracking? 21:48:08 John Callas: very narrow thing of tracking people who says DNT 21:48:25 ...if there was a cookie that went to everyone (opt-out cookie), those are part of the whole thing 21:48:40 ...I'm talking about one field, the unique identifier 21:48:45 q? 21:48:49 to amyc, we do have a second option in the Service Provider list, which would specifically allow service providers to share data across first parties for "integrity, security, and correct operation" 21:48:57 it can still be unique but its fine if it expires thanks npdoty, glad I wasn't making that up 21:49:19 ...we want to seperate good from bad actors 21:49:33 ...may take longer to find bad actor if they do not have that specific cookie 21:49:46 Chris: if you enable DNT:1, you would enable do not track 21:49:56 ...cookies are one mode, device fingerprinting is another 21:50:03 ...timing correlation 21:50:16 ...we are being asked not to use any of those things, all of those are off teh security table 21:50:23 Peter: not where the discussion is right now 21:50:24 amyc, I'm not sure if that still prohibits a first party from volunteering sharing data with others for security analysis 21:50:51 ...what I had heard is a set of discussion about unique ID cookies, and a specific request that those not be put on at time DNT:1 is on 21:51:05 ...I have been told that unqiue fingerprinting is not unique but in buckets 21:51:47 ...one of the topics that is a specific proposal or goal is to see whether we could get unqiue ID cookies taking out when DNT:1 is on 21:52:05 Chris: could we use other forms of tracking? 21:52:11 Peter: gets back to 1024 buckets 21:52:24 ChrisM: you don't use low entropy buckets to do security. 21:52:30 ...trying to get clarification 21:52:32 unique identifiers as a term covers more than cookies, it also covers fingerprinting using JS 21:52:43 Peter: this request can in part from Mayer 21:52:55 s/can in/came in/ 21:53:26 Mayer: for over a year, there has been a proposal to allow companies, when they have indication of potential behavior, you could use any tracking 21:53:31 the reality is that >99% tracking uses cookies 21:53:38 ...if you see weird cookies from a browser that didn't set, you could use 21:53:55 ...we are talking about, prospective use for all users, this idea has been floating around for over a year 21:54:05 ack Wileys 21:54:05 :-) 21:54:07 Shane: back to statement you made 20 minutes ago 21:54:17 q? 21:54:24 ...a goal of a fraudster is not to get caught 21:54:29 q- 21:54:33 ...way not to get caught is to look like everyone else 21:54:34 q- fielding 21:54:45 ...showing up without a cookie, immediately suspect 21:54:53 ...not an ideal outcome for a fraudster 21:55:07 ...with that understanding, you begin finding elements of fraud 21:55:12 people who delete cookies are suspected of being crims? 21:55:13 ..1. discover, 2. defense 21:55:38 q- 21:55:38 q? 21:55:46 ...setting cookie, tells me that I now suspect them 21:55:59 ...by prospectively setting, I remove one of the clues that I may be on to them 21:56:01 q+ 21:56:05 agree 21:56:18 ...setting a unique ID once you suspect them, you are telling the fraudster they are suspecting them 21:56:52 John Callas: convincing a bad guy to go away is a win 21:57:17 Shane: best way is to lock them in to existing pattern 21:57:42 ...don't want to tip them off 21:57:59 Q? 21:58:13 panopticlick 21:58:38 John Callas: without any identifiers, use of fonts and other techniques can identify 21:58:40 q+ 21:59:01 Shane: the concept of the overal GS call, they can use other avenues to block 21:59:07 ...not saying we do not use that as well 21:59:12 q- 21:59:26 ...you said you could build better security, that assumes that they are not already at level of maximum security 21:59:37 ...we already have multiple PhDs working on security 21:59:45 ...lose of ID is always a lose 21:59:56 John Callas: trade off from privacy discussion 22:00:07 ack Chapell 22:00:08 s/John Callas/Jon Callas/g 22:00:29 Alan: majority of this room are not qualified to have this discussion 22:00:33 +q 22:00:49 ChrisM: adding to what Shane said, one other face, prosecution 22:00:55 ack Chris_IAB 22:00:56 s/face/phase/ 22:00:58 ...there is defense and then prosecution 22:01:02 close Q 22:01:08 Zakim, close the queue 22:01:08 ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed 22:01:20 ...when handing over records, they have used unique id based off cooking to show harm based on a particular bad actor 22:01:25 +q 22:01:49 ...how do you go backwards, how do you go back and issue a credit for fraud 22:02:15 q? 22:02:25 Jon Callas: something that has occured to me, what if what you had was a field in a cookie that was encrypted in a way that was unique 22:02:38 ...it had some other things in there 22:03:04 ...If you had something that was there, where everyone gets a new one, unique per transaction 22:03:17 q+ 22:03:20 low entropy pseudo unique ID 22:03:24 ...It sounds to me to not be a unique identifier, but has a security value 22:03:32 ...we have been trying to understand definition of tracking 22:03:34 q? 22:03:45 ack fielding 22:03:55 Roy: other aspect of security, accounting 22:04:16 susanisrael has joined #dnt 22:04:16 Folks: most of us are not qualified to have this discussion. Many of those who ARE qualified are unable to talk in specifics. If we're still arguing over security and fraud exceptions, it does not bode well for our progress. Can we PLEASE move to a more productive discussion? 22:04:18 ...large campaigns, find out about click fraud after the fact, have to go back look at accounts and remove them from billing 22:04:35 ack jmayer 22:04:38 ...contracturally required to do so, hard to do if you do not know who they are. Most done by IP address, not sure percentage 22:05:07 Mayer: high level thinking, question before group: marginial value of propsectively setting unqiue IDs for lots of users 22:05:10 isn't the whole point of a permitted use that it is a case where tracking is permitted because it's necessary? The argument is not that this is not tracking but that it is a case where tracking is necessary. 22:05:15 ...based on discussion, there are serious questions 22:05:24 I am disturbed that we're talking about technology -- cookies, unique identifiers -- when we have done much better when we talk about principles and trust -- retention of data that can be linked to a user, and so on. If we trust a site is abiding by the principles, then yes, be slightly (more) concerned if they set a unique ID, but it's not -- by itself -- something we need to forbid, is it? 22:05:29 Alan. I disagree. This is a conversation on fundamental values, doing privacy for DNT in a meaningful well. It doesn't have to do with privacy expertise. 22:05:30 ...have not heard from ad industry, why there is so much marginal value 22:05:41 ...burden has shifted to ad industry of why these cookies have so much value 22:05:49 ...I would love to hear more about it, off the record 22:06:05 jchester2 this is not about privacy, its about security. 22:06:27 Peter: couple items of potential action items 22:06:28 s/from ad industry/from ad industry security experts/ 22:06:52 I have done my best to channel ad industry security expert concepts in this area to the very edge of not oversharing IP specifics. This has been based on many hours of focused discussion on these topics. So while I'm not personally a security expert, I believe I've fairly represented their views on this topic. 22:07:16 We hadn't addressed that 22:07:17 ...point raised, not sure about what is said in current compliance spec, third party security services that get IP address accross a lot of websites 22:07:24 jchester2 we've heard a number of plausible arguments for in favor of security. 22:07:27 Alan C, we just heard from an expert you don't need to do this for security purposes, given the privacy issues. But we will continue the dialogue. 22:07:41 Justin: added language based on Roy's description. Roy could you look at language 22:07:47 Shane, after nearly two years of conversations, the advertising industry has produced nothing more than second-hand observations. Meanwhile, world-class security experts have suggested prospective ID cookies have limited value. The ball is squarely in your court. 22:08:07 Peter: I am not aware of objecting to that language, if someone has an objection look at that part 22:08:11 jchester2, we've heard from an expert that cookies can be replaced with other forms of tracking. 22:08:24 ...heard Mayer discuss marginal value of unique ID cookies 22:08:37 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#security 22:08:47 ...Shane explained loss bad actors at beginning and honey pot 22:08:51 I can write down all that I've said - I believe that more than clearly showed that UIDs are of real value to the security/fraud battle. The current expert could not disagree with any of those points. 22:08:58 ...response back was that privacy implications were greater 22:09:06 ...we did clarify what as in and out of discussion 22:09:20 ...I have not heard why the things Shane said were diminimish 22:09:30 ...we clarified issues, I will consider this part of the discussion closed 22:09:31 Shane, I disagree with your interpretation. But the debate will continue 22:09:51 Peter: we have a short other piece of unique IDs with financial accounting 22:09:57 jchester2, we've also heard from other experts on needing market research for advertising to continue to foster internet growth. But, we will continue the dialogue. (: 22:10:01 Jeff - the discussion is scribed - not sure what there is to "interpret" 22:10:14 ...step 1 - permitted use of financial auditing and accounting 22:10:25 This is not meant to sound snarky -- did we make substantive progress on this discussion? 22:10:27 ...variety of statements of how information was needed in the permitted use 22:10:38 s/diminimish/ de minimis 22:10:46 q? 22:10:46 fielding, I'm not sure your language was added. I think I held off because someone else was working on text too (perhaps amyc?). I don't know that that ever got done, so I will incorporate your language. 22:10:48 Topic: Financial 22:11:03 aleecia, I heard consensus on the text in 6.2.2.6 ;-) 22:11:06 Dan: As part of doing research, cookie data on impression was not part of financial accounting 22:11:08 justin, fielding, amyc, we have language (perhaps from amyc) in the Service Provider section 22:11:35 ...safari users cannot possibly be breaking financial reporting and auditing 22:11:36 we should define tracking in section 6.6.6 22:11:49 ...real world were unique IDs are needed 22:11:55 ...happy to get into details 22:12:20 Peter: there is a cost per action advertising 22:12:32 ...someone takes actions, clicks, and then they get paid 22:12:48 ...user has taken an action, so would become first party, allows collection 22:13:05 ...second, cost per click add, when you click there is a meaningful interaction 22:13:25 ...those important things would not be affected by DNT 22:13:31 ...third is cost per impression 22:13:40 ...here the user did not have a meaningful interaction 22:13:49 ...that is the core piece going forward because still a third party 22:14:03 ...whether that piece, cookies get saved in accounting system 22:14:20 q? 22:14:23 Zakim, open the queue 22:14:23 ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open 22:14:29 q+ dwainberg 22:14:32 Dan: I would say mostly right, cost per click, they are a first party 22:14:36 npdoty, right, it's in Service Provider (or at least on the options). fielding had also suggested a change to 6.2.2.6 I thought, but perhaps not necessary now? 22:14:48 q? 22:15:12 ...for conversion event, maybe not that clear 22:15:13 ...haven't seen any evidence, interested in needing information from user for CPA 22:15:20 ack dwainberg 22:15:24 +q 22:15:37 DavidW: I think there is another model, you are assuming the CPA that the attribution comes after a click 22:15:49 ...the attribution could come after an impression or multiple impressions 22:15:59 q+ 22:16:10 Jeff Chester: discussion about attribution model, series of actions 22:16:32 Peter: want fact finding, area where more knowledge could clarify the issue 22:16:45 ack jchester 22:16:48 ack brooks 22:17:15 Brooks: echo David's question, much of the backend analysis is a two point measurement event 22:17:21 Q+ 22:17:30 ...when you are in two different contexts, you are a third party in one of them 22:17:45 justin, I can't remember exactly, but I think my suggestion predated the current security text … it looks fine to me as is. 22:17:56 fielding, excellent. 22:18:02 q? 22:18:09 +q 22:18:13 ack Chapell 22:18:19 Joshua: for CPA, people are correct that saying it is a linking of event to prior events, possibly impressions 22:18:24 +q 22:18:25 justin, fielding, yay! 22:18:29 ...not a single linking, attribution is about series of events 22:18:40 W3C has joined #dnt 22:18:48 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 22:18:59 ...attribution model may be validation model 22:19:02 Will be discussing frequency capping / pricing when my turn comes up. And address the loss of revenue on Safari 3rd party cookie blocking. 22:19:02 q? 22:19:09 ...want an effective cost per action 22:19:23 q+ 22:19:32 Dan: Is there a real world place, where I can see these attribution models in effect 22:19:38 ...want to learn more about how it works 22:19:39 queue=WileyS,dwainberg 22:19:40 tlr, don't know why that happened 22:19:51 dwainberg, we're tracking you 22:19:53 ...if there is an ad netword that uses this model you talking about, I would love to see it 22:20:02 ack Wileys 22:20:04 ...for Safari uses without cookies, what happens with that 22:20:25 Shane: Ad pricing CPM, CPA, CPC 22:20:35 ...Safari has hit revenue 22:20:42 Q? 22:20:42 qunatify? 22:20:51 ...we have been moving toward CPM, impressions 22:21:13 ...some advertisers may give you more attribution for view through, general ranges 22:21:23 ...we also lose on frequency capping 22:21:28 firefox 22 tomorrow 22:21:39 ...I cannot demonstrate to an advertiser only show this ad 3 times 22:21:51 ...I cannot prove in an audit that I did that because I do not have a cookie ID 22:21:54 q? 22:21:58 ...generally we will lose on that side as well 22:21:59 BerinSzoka has joined #DNT 22:22:00 I'm curious about moving away from CPC -- Safari users can more easily be tracked when there's a click, right? 22:22:00 BillScannell has joined #dnt 22:22:09 will be priced down due to Safari blocking cookies 22:22:26 Shane: lower percentage based on market share 22:22:38 ...with Mozilla, percentage becomes much more significant 22:22:38 then firefox os 22:22:50 ...then it really does begin to destroy business models 22:23:08 Q? 22:23:08 Dan: frequency capping, will have discussion elsewhere 22:23:29 ...important to distinguish between breaking business model, and where financial audting won't work 22:23:59 q? 22:24:00 Shane: Yes, I can't bill CPC, CPA, or frequency cap, and I cannot prove that I did that in audit then I lose that business 22:24:02 q+ 22:24:06 Can we have someone from Apple speak to respond 22:24:12 firefox, safari, etc. could be back in play if we have a tracking consent aka exception API 22:24:18 +q 22:24:22 ...Already lose in Safari, magnify that in DNT setting 22:24:57 Peter: I think I heard Shane say, all I can do is bill for cost per impression 22:25:06 Still don't understand why CPC doesn't work, but I get why CPA has problems without unique cookies. 22:25:21 Shane: one of the things I said, even impression level billing is difficult, how do I seperate non-cookie ID and fraud 22:25:22 q+ 22:25:30 Justin, there is no problem with CPC and Do Not Track. 22:25:32 ...cannot defend with an audit that it is not fraud 22:25:34 justin, I think Wileys is suggesting that cost-per-click is hard to distinguish from click fraud for Safari users if they don't have a cookie history of the impression (and maybe for some reason they can't do this through other means) 22:25:37 q? 22:25:41 ack dwainberg 22:25:43 close q 22:25:45 DavidW: backup for a second, purpose for these models 22:25:49 the ad industry needs consent 22:25:58 Zakim, close the queue 22:25:58 ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed 22:26:09 q? 22:26:11 ...role of advertising is to support free content, these models allow advertisers to understand value 22:26:24 ...we would create more ad inventory, race to the bottom, bad user experience 22:26:32 q? 22:26:38 ack rigo 22:26:54 But there is a way to do attribution that also protects privacy for DNT:1 users 22:26:56 Rigo: If I understand, you put something in fraud bucket, you have exception for security and fraud 22:27:15 ...we have a clear purpose limitation, for your reporting, you can use but for nothing else 22:27:30 ...if you collect for reporting, at the end of reporting, just get rid of the data 22:27:36 q? 22:27:48 ...for frequency capping this is a convenience. How fast are you willing to innovate? 22:28:03 npdoty, Got it, doesn't seem that black-and-white, but if cookies are useful for combating click-fraud, I get can see why CPC would be marginally less reliable (but not unauditable or usable, since I think it was clear from last speaker that cookies were of relatively limited value). 22:28:18 dwainberg, if the concern is any decrease in revenue is too harmful to the user experience to allow DNT:1, then is there any restriction (like against behaviorally targeted advertising) that's acceptable? 22:28:21 Mayer: In thinking for this permitted use. What information do you need, action counting. Let's see if there is a way to do if there are not unique IDs 22:28:29 +a 22:28:33 +q 22:28:44 ack jmayer 22:28:47 rachel whispers at zakim that she's been very quiet today and would like to speak 22:29:11 ...make sure to flag, one reason that I have reservation about permitted use, we built a system that allows attribution from an ad 22:29:12 Many technical solutions that work in a small lab break at scale because the smaller implementation typically doesn't take into account all of the additional variables that come into play at scale. 22:29:23 ...want to hear from industry why this doesn't work? 22:29:27 amyc has joined #dnt 22:29:33 ack Brooks 22:29:45 WaltM_CC has joined #dnt 22:30:02 Brooks: question is not about what happens in Safari, or 10% of the market 22:30:08 ...what happens to that value 22:30:17 +q 22:30:20 ...if it drops portion of the market by 10%, that's 1% of the market 22:30:28 I'm no expert but even if it were true that you can do CPA without cookies, what about CPM? they serve two completely different market needs. CPM ads are about building brand awareness 22:30:42 ...We are talking about huge numbers 22:30:51 BerinSzoka, uh . . . 22:31:07 ...It is all about a valuation model, not a pricing model, which dictates how much people are willing to pay 22:31:13 ...real money that pays for real websites 22:31:28 Lou: I think that David W made a good point 22:31:35 Berin, CPM is easy - you just count the impression. 22:31:43 ...this is about return on investment, that is the justification for supporting websites 22:31:50 Same goes for CPC - count the click. 22:31:55 ...if we cannot value an advertising impression there is no reason to spend money there 22:32:10 ...advertisers have done is treat data responsibly, that is the balance 22:32:20 ...cannot believe we are still having this conversation 22:32:31 q+ 22:32:35 ...advertisers get to support content, users get to use content, that is a balance 22:32:36 Ok: 22:32:52 Dan: it sounds like we are talking about a permitted use for advertising 22:33:01 ...there are a couple issues on the table 22:33:06 ...will this break business models 22:33:19 ...is this needed for this permitted use. just trying to get clarity about 22:33:23 We're here for notice and choice. If you are not in favor of users being able to make choices about where their data goes, let's get that clear. 22:33:41 ...trying to understand what is going on now. Want a name of ad network where I can see how this works 22:33:42 Roy has been clear :-) 22:34:07 ...just trying to figure out what is there, to find out how you can do what you want in a privacy protective way 22:34:21 Peter: Dan's request seems to be a reasonable thing 22:34:23 Right, CPM is easy--except for the fraud problem 22:34:35 ...reasonable that he gets the same view of commercial advertisers if they are clients 22:34:45 ...An advertiser eye view 22:34:54 Break until top of the hour 22:35:05 -moneill2? 22:42:16 strider has joined #dnt 22:45:05 vincent has joined #dnt 22:46:01 +mecallahan 22:46:41 strider1 has joined #dnt 22:47:04 strider has joined #dnt 22:47:27 Mecallahan has joined #Dnt 22:49:55 -mecallahan 22:56:02 Mecallahan has joined #Dnt 22:56:22 +??P1 22:56:24 +[IPcaller] 22:56:38 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 22:56:38 +moneill2; got it 22:56:48 +mecallahan 22:56:50 zakim, ??P1 is vincent 22:56:50 +vincent; got it 23:02:20 strider has joined #dnt 23:04:25 -moneill2 23:06:33 +[IPcaller] 23:06:43 -mecallahan 23:06:47 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 23:06:47 +moneill2; got it 23:09:44 npdoty has joined #dnt 23:10:04 rrsagent, pointer? 23:10:04 See http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-irc#T23-10-04 23:11:10 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 23:11:28 cannot hear anything 23:12:42 thats OK, thought it was the phone system 23:13:17 zakim, who is making noise? 23:13:31 npdoty, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Apple] (48%) 23:19:08 Mecallahan has joined #Dnt 23:22:21 strider has joined #dnt 23:24:44 bryan has joined #dnt 23:28:15 plan is to restart in just a couple minutes. 23:33:02 afowler has joined #dnt 23:33:05 jmayer has joined #dnt 23:33:59 Chapell has joined #DNT 23:34:04 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 23:34:37 rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt 23:34:49 W3C has joined #dnt 23:34:50 Yianni has joined #DNT 23:34:58 scribenick: adrianba 23:35:04 efelten has joined #dnt 23:35:11 tlr: describes the end of the princeton workshop 23:35:21 ... said lots of the things that were said in the last year 23:35:24 here's a basic structure,can people live without, can't people live with it, silence at that time 23:35:33 ... this is the f2f where we need to make progress 23:35:36 ... and drive to last call 23:35:48 dsinger has joined #dnt 23:35:49 ... need to start talking about the things that it takes to get agreement 23:36:01 amyc has joined #dnt 23:36:02 ... some people think there is no way to get to agreement but i don't think that is helpful 23:36:08 justin has joined #dnt 23:36:15 ... that shouldn't take over the discussion 23:36:20 paulohm has joined #dnt 23:36:25 ... let's figure out the things we really care about 23:36:31 The original CDT proposal that people didn't hum they couldn't live with in Princeton: https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/20110447_DNT_v2.pdf 23:36:35 ... build something useful on a credible schedule 23:36:43 scribenick: wseltzer 23:36:43 sidstamm has joined #dnt 23:37:13 peterswire: Yesterday afternoon, we were talking about provisions in the draft framework 23:37:16 Dominique has joined #dnt 23:37:36 ... item 6; there was an interesting point of agreement, more work would have to be done, but there's a bunch we can work with 23:37:46 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 23:37:56 susanisrael has joined #dnt 23:37:56 ... This morning, we identified priority pieces for many stakeholders; 23:38:15 ... privacy: unique ID cookies; industry: stability for investment 23:38:18 AAIsham has joined #dnt 23:38:21 Brooks has joined #dnt 23:38:27 ... this afternoon, the tone shifted, talking past one another 23:38:41 ... Now, time for all of you to think: What does it take to move forward? 23:38:51 ... What can you live with? or if not, what happens then? 23:38:56 ... privacy: do not collect and unique id cookies 23:39:12 aleecia has joined #dnt 23:39:13 ... It may be, the people who don't come together, you don't get a standard. 23:39:27 ... We have on the screen the draft framework. 23:40:00 ... I'm going to try calling on Shane, to talk about some ideas, 23:40:10 hwest has joined #dnt 23:40:17 ... and then some privacy ideas about unique ID cookies 23:40:39 ... let's hear from people, including those who haven't spoken much: What does it take to move forward? 23:40:54 ... then we go home for the night, and tomorrow, we reconvene to see if we have enough to get to last call. 23:41:06 ... Shane, can you tell us about handling of data? 23:41:24 Wileys: This isn't a formal proposal, but a thought experiment 23:41:31 ... Continue to use unique IDs and cookies 23:41:41 ... upon collection of a record with DNT:1 associated 23:41:51 ... would immediately separate out the few permitted uses 23:42:00 ... all other material would be de-identified 23:42:01 unlinked? 23:42:21 ... Dan and I have agreed on normative text, not yet on the technical detail 23:42:36 de-identification = combination of technical and administrative measures 23:42:52 ... if we look at where that would leave us, meaningful outcome for consumer privacy and put organizations on the hook, accountable for follow-through, get broad adoption 23:43:34 ... Starting point, not nirvana for advocates, but implementable 23:43:42 peterswire: explain de-identification? 23:43:50 Wileys: a raw record and a de-identified record 23:43:58 ... raw record security, frequency capping, debugging 23:44:12 ... open debate on finance, (double-verify audit for a short time) 23:44:28 ... other permitted uses we've discussed should be able to use de-identified outcome 23:44:31 Joanne has joined #DNT 23:44:39 ... reporting and analysis can occur 23:45:11 ... de-identification: a record comes in, you look at unique IDs and either remove or one-way secret hash 23:45:18 cookies? 23:45:28 ... IP addresses => geolocation; side data limited or removed 23:45:40 ... removing information that would allow linking record with other records 23:45:48 ... URL cleansing, for username, userID, password 23:45:58 so not unlinked 23:46:01 searchterm 23:46:02 ... things you'd see in query string, filter those out 23:46:10 ... at some point in time, that key would be rotated 23:46:17 peterswire: this is a series of concrete steps 23:46:24 ... things not done widely across the ecosystem today 23:46:35 q? 23:46:37 justin: sounds similar to something I put on the mailing list 23:46:46 ... three states: red, yellow, green 23:47:14 ... red: security, yellow: financial reporting; green, de-id, use as you like 23:47:15 Shane, can you please recap the proposal in writing at your convenience? 23:47:21 q+ 23:47:29 Wileys: the delta is from three-state to two-state 23:47:39 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 23:47:41 ... de-identified data is safe to use 23:47:48 Zakim, open the queue 23:47:48 ok, npd, the speaker queue is open 23:47:49 q+ 23:48:10 peter has joined #dnt 23:48:15 q? 23:48:17 ... with promises it wouldn't be used to represent an individual 23:48:34 justin: what's modeling? 23:48:57 q? 23:49:03 Wileys: e.g. if I want to see which link position gets more usage, look at group behavior 23:49:12 justin: is that a permitted use? 23:49:29 Wileys: not "permitted use" -- reporting is done with de-identified data 23:49:35 q? 23:50:04 +q 23:50:10 q+ dan? 23:50:15 -q 23:50:17 +q 23:50:24 if uids are persistent then tracking occurs. Do Not Track is being ignored 23:50:34 q? 23:50:36 q+ 23:50:54 Wileys: if an organization is de-identified and you can be confident it's not re-identified, more uses are acceptable 23:51:09 ... accountability or trust component, the pledge that the organization wouldn't re-ID 23:51:19 +q 23:51:37 peterswire: mapping to discussions: product improvement - is that debugging? A/B testing? 23:51:58 q+ 23:52:10 Wileys: For product improvement I can test buckets of people, not individuals 23:52:35 ... I think you can get to all of that with de-identified data; buckets, not individuals 23:52:46 ... e.g. homepage-test-123 vs homepage-test-124 23:52:53 ... compare outcomes across buckets 23:53:14 peterswire: [analytics] 23:53:36 Wileys: the panel elements survive in de-identified data 23:53:51 q? 23:53:54 ack chris 23:53:58 ... but would need someone from market research to say whether it meets their needs 23:54:16 ChrisPedigoOPA: with your de-identification definition, URL history is still there 23:55:32 Wileys: if you promise you'll never reverse engineer, you can look at cleansed URLs but never correlate to actual user 23:55:42 there is a 1 to 1 correspndance 123 == abc 23:55:53 ChrisPedigoOPA: you couldn't re-target 23:56:08 Wileys: Right, no retargeting, only reporting, e.g. how many people saw this ad. 23:56:32 zakim, who is here? 23:56:32 On the phone I see [Apple], vincent, moneill2 23:56:33 On IRC I see peter, ChrisPedigoOPA, Joanne, hwest, aleecia, Brooks, susanisrael, dan_auerbach, Dominique, sidstamm, paulohm, justin, amyc, dsinger, efelten, Yianni, W3C, 23:56:33 ... rachel_n_thomas, jackhobaugh, Chapell, jmayer, afowler, bryan, strider 23:56:33 ... doing everything possible to prevent myself from re-identifying 23:56:47 q? 23:56:49 peterswire: let's pause the queue, put back into terms of draft framework 23:56:52 I was going to bring it back to the framework (via queue comment) 23:56:57 Shane would you kindly write this up so we have text to talk about 23:57:00 ... Where can we move forward? 23:57:17 Aleecia - yes, its on my to do list 23:57:19 This approach would require having a precise, technically actionable definition of "de-identified data". 23:57:22 thank you 23:57:45 peterswire: Let's read through the framework; comments or questions to ask 23:57:50 ... what would it take to live with this 23:57:51 Wileys: but you could still single out user ABC and you have a profile of user ABC? 23:57:55 Ed, agreed - and I've tried a bit in the email list but look to guidance on what specific elements you'd like to see. 23:58:01 This thought experiment is nothing more than a linkable pseudonym 23:58:29 Rigo, yes - but this is not a real user anymore - just a ID that links to nothing in the real-world 23:58:32 Thanks, Shane. Do you have a specific definition (e.g. from email) that you like at the moment? 23:58:35 peterswire: reads draft point 1 23:58:43 WileyS, would you consider this to apply to first parties and service providers? 23:58:54 Rob, disagree - a pseudonym can be linked to in the real-world. A de-identified record can not. 23:58:55 ... for "browser", read "user agent where the consumer has activated DNT functionality" 23:59:03 Wileys, does hash rotate over time? 23:59:12 Shane, you say "cannot" when that is not actually true. 23:59:39 WileyS, it is hashing, one way, re-identification is not as relevant when data is still linkable. 23:59:39 peterswire: narrow set of permitted uses; Shane, did you imagine a time-limit? 00:00:04 Wileys: there'd be a retention requirement, transparent to consumer 00:00:10 to shane: in your framework, could someone come and insist that you answer 'did user 123 see URL Q' where URL Q was stored against ABC. Is that answerable? 00:00:21 Great, I'll state my retention time is 55 years. 00:00:25 [Draft Framework: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Apr/att-0298/one_pager_framework_as_distributed.pdf ] 00:00:45 peterswire: don't have a definition of tracking, but multiple sites over time 00:00:46 Aleecia, it is not purely "technical" true in isolation, but I can in combination between technical, operational, and administrative controls have a reasonable assurance this is true. 00:00:47 WileyS, would you consider this to apply to first parties and service providers? 00:00:52 ok, you take a snapshot of the realworld and transform to a pet world. I logically come to the same conclusion then Peter. When do you move this into k-like buckets? 00:01:01 ... permitted uses? is that in the compliance spec now? 00:01:09 Aleecia, good luck surviving industry scrutiny with that retention rate. 00:01:14 Aleecia, if you choose to state your retention time as 55 years, I'm sure some of your colleagues may have something to say about that - as will members of the press and potentially, regulators 00:01:21 q? 00:01:26 aleecia: you don't need separate siloed data, but you can only use it under controls for so long as necessary for that use 00:01:37 q+ 00:01:44 ... you might have people from a department lose their access to the data on a certain date 00:01:55 q? 00:02:03 if data is not unlinked then plug-ins and browsers will 00:02:11 peterswire: are there pieces of DF#1 that people can't live with? 00:02:19 Alan & Shane, we all know social pressure is not sufficient for data retention 00:02:21 Aleecia accurately reports the state of the group, and I believe that's written in our sections on Secondary Use and Minimization 00:02:33 JC, yes - but to keep a consistent level of longnitudal consistency in data, this approach would require re-de-identifing the data again at its retention limit and then throwing away the key on a consistent frequency (daily, weekly, etc.) 00:02:53 TS has joined #DNT 00:03:05 peterswire: DF#2 00:03:18 q- 00:03:24 Aleecia, I think we both know that this is more than mere social pressure 00:03:26 q? 00:03:28 ... non-comlliance woudl be a DAA violation; that is very different from what's in the compliance draft 00:03:32 Uh, we're not planning to writing "non-compliance is a DAA violation" into a W3C spec, right? That's on DAA to do, not us... 00:03:34 shane, would a company have to be transparent about its deidentification process? 00:03:48 I'm confused. Is this an opportunity to ask questions? Or just a walkthrough? 00:03:51 to be clear, DAA enforcement is 'additional' to the statements in the compliance document, not a change to them, I assume 00:03:51 peterswire: DF#3, DAA would modify its current codes ... 00:03:53 trying to get through my clarifying questions before my substantive comment on the queue 00:04:06 jmayer: walkthrough I assume 00:04:11 Dan, yes - to some degree - I believe there would be IP specifics that wouldn't be disclosed. 00:04:12 peterswire: DF#4, no persistent IDs if no permitted use 00:04:17 dan, you're on the queue for clarifying and then substance? 00:04:25 Alan, I would like DNT to be more than social pressure. That is why we need more than Shane's proposal. 00:04:26 I take it that #3 would not be a change from current Compliance spec 00:05:04 q? 00:05:26 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 00:05:43 justin: standard today says no collection if no permitted use; EFF's says no cookies if no permitted use 00:05:44 for scribe purposes: Jeff asked for a meta discussion here, and was told we will continue through the document. 00:05:47 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 00:06:02 Aleecia, could you explain "social pressure"? We're working on a voluntary standard - what are you envisioning? 00:06:44 peterswire: data hygiene, continue to make progress over time, not in draft spec 00:06:45 this one? "Data retained by a party for permitted uses must be limited to the data reasonably necessary for such permitted uses," (compliance current draft) 00:06:53 peterswire: DF#5 00:06:57 for scribe purposes as well, I lost the connection between Shane's thought experiment and the DAA framework. Those are two different discussions. The thougtexperiment has not completed yet. 00:07:16 .. and is worth furter looking at. 00:07:20 does it mean 'adapt' (meaning change)? or 'adopt 00:07:26 peterswire: DF#6, talked through many pieces yesterday 00:07:29 ' (meaning add on to it)? 00:07:42 I believe "adapt" is intended 00:07:51 peterswire: that's an approach to structure our discussions, 00:07:57 Shane here's a more productive response than a literal answer to your question, I hope. Something like this: under DNT, retention of data for permitted uses is X time frame. If a company's retention is longer than X, they must document why this is necessary and proportional in their privacy policy. 00:08:05 X would need to be something fairly short. 00:08:07 ... I believe it's an improvement from the status quo for all stakeholders and good public policy 00:08:28 BillScannell has joined #dnt 00:08:32 peterswire: How to get to something tomorrow that shows us reason and way to move forward 00:08:46 question: I read 1+2+3 as basically "do not retain" (with the exception of permitted uses). fair? 00:08:48 ... I've gotten wildly divergent advice, often strongly voiced, incompatible 00:08:54 q? 00:09:18 ... how do we take Monday afternoon's convergence, today's discussion, see a way to move forward 00:09:42 I think this discussion is actually probably more useful than having the same fight over Shane's definition of deidentification that we've had on the mailing list and in the last two face-to-face meetings. 00:10:05 ... I promise to listen to the priorities of consumer groups, advertiser groups, site groups, browsers, government 00:10:12 Why, Justin? It's the same discussion 00:10:43 ... You have to decide overnight what you want to do, and how to find a way to do something tomorrow 00:10:44 Shane is suggesting we replace a random unique ID with another random unique ID 00:10:45 -q 00:10:57 Removing the side channel data *is* an improvement. 00:11:09 peterswire: one of the thoughts I've had is that good data practices in the ecosystem will help 00:11:16 But swaping a rand with another rand does not improve much at all 00:11:21 Aleecia - one that the key is now gone. NOW you have NO TECHNICAL WAY to reverse engineer the resulting dataset - even if you wanted to. 00:11:23 ... doesn't address all the concerns, including consumer groups to move away from unique IDs 00:11:59 ... how do we create something now, and then come back and revisit unique ID cookies 00:12:01 Shane, where did the key go, in a store/vault, or actual random rotation? 00:12:25 This assumes key rotation, which if you're suggesting doing every 2 weeks, I can listen further, but right now - I'm not hearing that. 00:12:25 Shane, to be frank, I am open to the approach, and want to explore further. 00:12:27 ... hope that people in industry, people outside industry, can see whether glimmers of alternative can turn into something that could be adopted. 00:12:58 ... So we start with the framework, leave an opening to return and use the next-generation efforgts 00:13:11 You cut off discussion of retention 00:13:15 (over lunch) 00:13:22 Rob, destroyed 00:13:24 ... How do we take the work that's been done, then return to do more. 00:13:36 If there's more to the proposal, I look forward to reading it 00:13:45 ... I can report good conversations, not yet sign-off 00:13:53 Shane, ok, that is better then we discussed before, we are talking actual unlinkability then. 00:14:04 Aleecia - I cut off discussion of arbitrary retention. Companies would be required to publically disclose their retention periods per permitted use 00:14:06 ... I'm asking those of you who are silent, who want something to happen, to think about tonight, 00:14:11 ... what's the best path here? 00:14:22 aleecia, it's an important discussion that needs to get resolved eventually. But 30 minutes of that queue replicating the same exact arguments against Shane's definition would not be a good way to end the session. (For the record, I am sympathetic to the arguments.) 00:14:44 ... I came in optimistic on Monday; I'd like to see if you can do something with that. 00:14:45 Yes - at some point to lower risk it would be recommended to eventually destroy the key (but that is not required to reach de-identification) 00:15:17 aleecia: As former co-chair to current, ask for a round of applause for Peter for the last two days 00:15:21 [applause] 00:15:27 rvaneijk, I think the same key is used over a couple of weeks at least (am I right Wileys ?) 00:15:33 [adjourned] 00:15:42 johnsimpson has left #dnt 00:15:52 s/[applause]/[vigorous applause]/ 00:16:07 -moneill2 00:16:16 -vincent 00:16:49 RRSAgent, make logs public 00:16:55 RRSAgent, draft minutes 00:16:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer 00:18:58 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 00:19:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 00:19:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer 00:19:27 strider has joined #dnt 00:20:40 "The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true." -Galadriel 00:23:21 -[Apple] 00:23:23 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has ended 00:23:23 Attendees were [Apple], moneill2, +1.917.846.aaaa, moneill2?, +1.917.846.aabb, +1.917.846.aacc, mecallahan, vincent 00:25:46 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 00:25:52 johnsimpson has left #dnt 00:54:31 AndChat|208329 has joined #dnt 00:58:16 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 01:13:39 efelten has joined #dnt 01:57:14 efelten has joined #dnt 02:08:55 afowler has joined #dnt 02:09:14 afowler has left #dnt 03:18:30 adrianba has joined #dnt 03:31:08 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 03:33:24 prestia has joined #dnt 03:41:37 W3C has joined #dnt 03:47:20 W3C1 has joined #dnt 03:50:24 efelten has joined #dnt 03:53:19 dsinger has joined #dnt 03:57:22 kulick has joined #dnt 04:08:03 W3C has joined #dnt 04:16:58 W3C1 has joined #dnt 04:57:05 efelten has joined #dnt 05:16:48 fielding has joined #dnt 05:51:49 npdoty has joined #dnt 07:03:05 schunter has joined #dnt 08:45:23 carloss has joined #dnt 09:30:23 Zakim has left #dnt 09:35:32 carloss has left #dnt 11:04:31 fwagner has joined #dnt 12:06:49 efelten has joined #dnt 13:30:10 W3C has joined #dnt 14:43:20 strider has joined #dnt 14:52:31 simon has joined #dnt 14:55:24 bilcorry has joined #dnt 15:21:11 vinay has joined #dnt 15:24:00 moneill2 has joined #dnt 15:30:15 strider has joined #dnt 15:34:36 npdoty has joined #dnt 15:40:26 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 15:40:41 MarkVickers has joined #dnt 15:43:44 W3C has joined #dnt 15:48:10 fwagner has joined #dnt 15:48:20 dsinger has joined #dnt 15:49:03 efelten has joined #dnt 15:50:46 WaltMichel has joined #DNT 15:51:50 adrianba has joined #dnt 15:52:37 hwest has joined #dnt 15:52:45 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 15:53:23 aleecia has joined #dnt 15:54:13 hefferjr has joined #dnt 15:54:17 amyc has joined #dnt 15:56:40 adrianba_ has joined #dnt 15:57:39 jeffwilson has joined #dnt 15:58:55 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 15:59:01 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:59:08 Zakim, this is TRACK 15:59:12 trackbot, start meeting 15:59:15 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:59:15 Zakim has joined #dnt 15:59:17 Zakim, this will be 15:59:18 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 15:59:18 Date: 08 May 2013 15:59:19 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:59:42 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:59:42 sorry, npdoty, I don't know what conference this is 15:59:43 On IRC I see jeffwilson, amyc, hefferjr, aleecia, rvaneijk, hwest, adrianba, WaltMichel, dsinger, fwagner, MarkVickers, jackhobaugh, npdoty, moneill2, vinay, bilcorry, simon, rigo, 15:59:43 ... RRSAgent, wseltzer_cloud, MT01, trackbot, hober, tlr 15:59:49 Zakim, this is TRACK 15:59:50 Zakim, mute me 15:59:51 ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM 15:59:52 bilcorry should now be muted 15:59:56 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:59:56 On the phone I see [Apple], bilcorry (muted) 16:00:02 Joanne has joined #DNT 16:00:08 kulick has joined #dnt 16:00:09 + +49.172.147.aadd 16:00:21 +[IPcaller] 16:00:32 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 16:00:33 +moneill2; got it 16:01:06 Zakim, aadd is schunter 16:01:06 +schunter; got it 16:01:11 -schunter 16:01:28 Zakim, mute Apple 16:01:28 [Apple] should now be muted 16:01:39 +schunter 16:01:58 in the meantime, everyone is getting coffee 16:02:45 PaulGlist has joined #dnt 16:03:43 prestia has joined #dnt 16:03:52 dsinger has joined #dnt 16:04:05 vincent has joined #dnt 16:04:46 peterswire has joined #dnt 16:05:30 jmayer has joined #dnt 16:05:33 W3C has joined #dnt 16:05:48 efelten has joined #dnt 16:05:53 dsinger_ has joined #dnt 16:05:54 +Jonathan_Mayer 16:06:22 adrianba has joined #dnt 16:07:09 meme has joined #dnt 16:07:32 robsherman has joined #dnt 16:07:49 volunteers to scribe for the morning session? 16:08:16 scribenick: amyc 16:08:26 justin has joined #dnt 16:08:33 -schunter 16:08:34 three cheers for amyc for scribing! 16:08:53 Zakim, unmute Apple 16:08:53 [Apple] should no longer be muted 16:08:56 paulohm has joined #dnt 16:09:08 good morning everybody! 16:09:11 jchester has joined #dnt 16:09:22 Yianni has joined #DNT 16:09:32 Peter: starting now, work must come from group, goodwill to getting work done 16:09:44 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 16:09:50 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 16:10:02 +schunter 16:10:04 ... turning over to Thomas for process, then first session about conversations from last night 16:10:41 fwagner has joined #dnt 16:11:08 ... relates that some have asked for more text, looking for right mix; others may not have spoken up and may want to surface issues today 16:11:33 jeffwilson has joined #dnt 16:11:49 JC has joined #DNT 16:11:52 tlr: two points about process, important to have voices heard and issues on the table, also important that we make progress and don't let ourselves be stopped 16:12:21 ... create space to make progress and path forward, this is driving agenda 16:12:25 Chapell has joined #DNT 16:12:28 susanisrael has joined #dnt 16:12:49 ... at end of day, getting back to writing spec, moving back from conceptual to textual level, and today will be bridge 16:13:05 rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt 16:13:26 fielding has joined #dnt 16:13:28 ... focus on topics on which we can make progress, other areas where we recite one anothers arguments 16:14:01 i|volunteers|Topic: Introduction and Agenda 16:14:19 ... agenda, start with broader group about conversations last night, topics for constructive conversations, then use that conversation to extract topics for breakouts 16:14:32 ... with quick report outs to group 16:14:36 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 16:15:03 ... hope that we will make progress, topics up to working group 16:15:21 ... breakout rooms on screen, each is able to connect via phone 16:15:38 What happens at end of day? Where are we statement? 16:16:04 ... let's colelctively find out how far we can get 16:16:04 JC: I see plenary both before and after lunch 16:16:11 + +33.6.50.34.aaee 16:16:20 zakim, aaee is vincent 16:16:20 +vincent; got it 16:16:22 s/JC:/JC,/ 16:16:24 Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt 16:16:28 sidstamm has joined #dnt 16:16:40 haakonfb has joined #dnt 16:16:40 q? 16:16:42 Peterswire: asking what were caucases last night, asking for suggestions to put on board 16:17:30 Robvaneijk: need to breakout before we can share, lots of developments 16:17:47 s/Robvaneijk/rvaneijk/ 16:18:01 Aleecia: agrees with breakouts first, asking about Shane's proposal from EOD yesterday 16:18:39 swiley: Adrian put diagram together, but have not put together text, will take 30 minutes to work through diagram with Adrian 16:18:52 tlr: suggests breakout session for Shane's proposal 16:19:23 q? 16:19:26 rvaneijk: shane's proposal still on table 16:19:38 q+ 16:20:09 tlr: everyone likely to know more about Shane's proposal, suggests that small group to prepare diagram and presentation on Shane's proposal 16:20:45 rvaneijk: advocates want time, suggests meeting separately and then reconvening 16:20:46 s/likely to know/likely to want to know/ 16:21:27 rigo: is Susan ready to work on audience measurement? could work on that 16:21:29 q? 16:21:36 ack rigo 16:21:36 ack ri 16:21:47 Susan: fine with that, Nielsen wants to participate too 16:22:05 dsinger: browser companies could work together too 16:22:30 q+ 16:22:50 tlr: audience measurements in Muir Woods, advocates going to Legoland 16:23:38 ...Sausalito for Shane, browsers in Catalina 16:23:58 wseltzer: offers staff assistance with scribing 16:24:13 tlr: good idea to have scribes in rooms for reporting back 16:24:19 johnsimpson has left #dnt 16:25:07 robsherman has joined #dnt 16:25:18 -schunter 16:25:24 -vincent 16:25:27 -Jonathan_Mayer 16:25:42 q- wseltzer 16:25:52 mecallahan has joined #dnt 16:26:07 big basin and wmh are also available 16:28:33 efelten has joined #dnt 16:28:36 W3C has joined #dnt 16:30:05 W3C has joined #dnt 16:30:13 robsherman1 has joined #dnt 16:30:16 -moneill2 16:30:23 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 16:30:30 sidstamm has joined #dnt 16:31:59 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 16:33:01 fwagner has joined #dnt 16:33:19 robsherman has joined #dnt 16:33:31 tara has joined #dnt 16:33:45 adrianba_ has joined #dnt 16:34:38 dsinger has joined #dnt 16:46:21 AAIsham has joined #dnt 16:52:19 +[IPcaller] 16:52:46 zkim, [IPCaller] is me 16:53:00 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 16:53:00 +moneill2; got it 16:54:20 -moneill2 17:03:07 +schunter 17:04:08 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger 17:04:17 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 17:04:17 sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]' 17:04:20 -schunter 17:04:30 -Rich_Schwerdtfeger 17:04:58 +schunter 17:04:59 TS has joined #DNT 17:06:40 +[IPcaller] 17:06:55 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 17:06:55 +moneill2; got it 17:07:00 Joanne has joined #DNT 17:08:41 +Jonathan_Mayer 17:09:27 jchester2 has joined #dnt 17:09:38 meme has joined #dnt 17:12:41 -schunter 17:15:28 robsherman has joined #dnt 17:16:11 prestia has joined #dnt 17:17:03 +schunter 17:17:21 If I recall, many participants will have departed by the afternoon session. 17:18:18 -schunter 17:18:36 efelten has joined #dnt 17:20:31 cannot hear 17:20:41 havent started yet 17:22:18 robsherman1 has joined #dnt 17:22:39 Dominique has joined #dnt 17:22:41 W3C has joined #dnt 17:23:41 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 17:23:45 scribenick: ChrisPedigoOPA 17:23:51 Zakim, unmute Apple 17:23:51 [Apple] was not muted, npdoty 17:24:06 Peter: for this session, we're going to have readouts of breakout sessions 17:24:10 Topic: Reports from Breakouts 17:24:18 with action items 17:24:22 fielding has joined #dnt 17:24:33 +schunter 17:24:34 susanisrael has joined #dnt 17:24:39 follow-on discussion, then move to next breakouts 17:24:57 paulohm has joined #dnt 17:25:01 order -- audience measurement, browsers, advocates, Shane, Justin 17:25:11 Order of presentations: 1) audience measurement, 2) browsers, 3) Shane, 4) consumer groups 17:25:25 Ari has joined #dnt 17:25:42 Susan Israel: tried to understand EU law re audience measurement 17:25:45 -schunter 17:25:53 tried to narrow scope 17:26:14 sidstamm has joined #dnt 17:26:19 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 17:26:21 +schunter 17:26:30 Q? 17:26:34 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:26:34 On the phone I see [Apple], bilcorry (muted), moneill2, Jonathan_Mayer, schunter 17:26:49 Rigo: agreed on "to calibrate and validate" 17:26:56 Yianni has joined #DNT 17:27:15 -schunter 17:27:16 also agreed that audience measurement is focused on content, not on the user 17:27:20 Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt 17:27:34 susan: we know there are other concerns and more work needed 17:27:41 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 17:27:49 Susan - will work wiht DAA 17:27:53 zakim, [apple] has, like, zilliions of people 17:27:53 I don't understand '[apple] has, like, zilliions of people', dsinger 17:28:06 Peter - next items? 17:28:46 Shane - issue exists for audience measurement 17:28:57 issue-25? 17:28:57 ISSUE-25 -- Possible exemption for research purposes -- pending review 17:28:57 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/25 17:29:08 Peter - will have concrete tasks for next two weeks 17:29:22 amyc has joined #dnt 17:29:23 David Singer - representing the browsers now 17:29:31 +schunter 17:29:32 we have generally used issue-25 for market research, with multiple proposals and pending review options 17:29:47 results from Browser breakout session 17:29:51 Joanne has joined #DNT 17:30:03 looked at DAA principles and compliance doc 17:30:19 Dominique has joined #dnt 17:30:27 users get a general improvement in collection/retention limits 17:30:33 principles good 17:30:47 details left to trade associations or regional orgs 17:30:57 discussed who turns on DNT 17:31:01 Bin_Hu has joined #dnt 17:31:10 must be turned on by a user, not an ISP, router 17:31:15 present+ Bin_Hu 17:31:19 not a default 17:31:28 explicit action, by the user herself 17:31:35 Puzzled over concerns about non-browser user agent 17:32:02 cool with "these documents are focused on general user agents and other UAs..." 17:32:17 what's a general UA? 17:32:19 Was MSFT in the browser group? Are they okay with it not being set by default? 17:32:31 1 - can access the general browseable web 17:32:33 jackhobaugh has joined #dnt 17:32:37 fwagner has joined #dnt 17:32:43 justin has joined #dnt 17:32:54 work onexplanation page is underway 17:33:04 should reflect general principles 17:33:27 note that other trade associations have additional codes of conduct 17:33:35 with links to those standars 17:34:02 Overall, we liked the DAA document 17:34:09 Peter - next steps? 17:34:32 David - browsers would like to have Q&A with those who wrote the DAA principles 17:34:39 in a breakout session 17:35:01 David - might need a general session instead 17:35:01 breakout sessions, about what it means, talk about user agent concerns 17:35:12 Dan Auerbach next from consumer groups 17:35:20 And Aleecia MacDonald 17:35:25 ... and more detail on the Draft Framework text, a little short 17:35:34 Dan - looked at de-id data 17:35:50 explored 3-state process 17:36:26 <___> ___ has joined #dnt 17:36:35 [we will try to type what's written on the paper board] 17:36:35 Raw data - Red 17:36:51 Red, Yellow, Green states 17:36:57 Red = raw 17:37:17 Red can be used for permitted uses - security fraud, debugging 17:37:37 Chapell has joined #DNT 17:37:40 Yellow - middle state 17:37:49 Green = fully deidentified data 17:38:01 Yellow - would include retention limits 17:38:10 Aleecia - retention limits 17:38:31 Aleecia - how do we set retention limits that work for consumer and industry groups 17:39:05 Aleecia - proposal: diff retention limits for each state 17:39:10 Green = forever 17:39:18 Red = short and proportional 17:39:27 Yellow = also proportional 17:39:35 Would use "should" 17:39:45 aleecia: should, if not, then must explain in privacy policy 17:40:28 Next steps? 17:40:39 will wait until after Shane's proposal 17:40:59 There's a discussion in the room about where Shane's proposal is 17:41:23 s/work onexplanation/work on explanation/ 17:42:14 Shane now at the mic 17:42:17 zakim, who is muted? 17:42:17 I see bilcorry muted 17:42:19 waiting.... 17:42:25 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:42:25 On the phone I see [Apple], bilcorry (muted), moneill2, Jonathan_Mayer, schunter 17:42:25 waiting... 17:42:28 zakim, mute schunter 17:42:28 schunter should now be muted 17:42:32 still waiting..... 17:42:37 Zakim, who is making noise? 17:42:43 data retention must be proportiate to the use in the red-yellow-green 17:42:50 hober, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Apple] (86%) 17:42:52 Shane - my proposal also has 3 states 17:42:56 for de-id data 17:43:43 diagram presented 17:43:50 state 1 - raw data 17:43:59 raw data can be stored for permitted uses 17:44:15 transparency required 17:44:30 then a "fork" 17:44:45 npd has joined #dnt 17:44:56 one way hash key to remove any personal info 17:45:18 next step - remove IP and replace with broad geo data 17:45:19 afowler has joined #dnt 17:45:29 next - cleanse URL 17:45:55 cleansing user names, names or clue to reverse engineer 17:46:05 next - look at side facts 17:46:17 anything that could help reverse engineer the record 17:46:22 i.e. date of birth 17:46:40 at the end of process, data cannot be reverse engineered 17:47:14 Goal is to build record that can never be reidentified 17:47:38 Rule 2 - you can never create a map between raw and de-id data 17:47:47 accountability is required 17:48:23 3rd step - re-hash the data but destroy the key 17:48:57 end with truly unlinkable data set 17:49:07 BerinSzoka has joined #DNT 17:49:09 rather than these specific means, do we intend this as an example of the principles? 17:49:16 Justin Brookman now coming to the mic 17:49:28 Justin - Build on previous comments 17:50:01 market research: people don't need unique users across sites 17:50:16 need unique visitors to sites so can use 1st party cookies 17:50:17 i/work on explanation/2 - has a preference interface that satisfies the requirements of the user to chose, 3 - can implement the TPE (notably the JS APIs etc.)/ 17:50:30 Walter has joined #dnt 17:50:37 may not need market research exception 17:51:00 will work with Susan and Rigo on market research 17:51:10 on de-id data 17:51:18 seems that we all agree on normative language 17:51:22 just need to work out details 17:51:33 Peter - two next sesssions 17:51:47 1) overlap between groups 17:52:11 2) browser discussion with DAA - could be breakout or general session 17:52:36 -schunter 17:52:43 Peter - do people feel like they want to be in both rooms 17:52:45 ? 17:53:33 decision to have two groups meet separately 17:53:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer 17:53:48 two groups - 17:54:15 1) User Agent issues with DAA principles in Catalina Island 17:54:16 +schunter 17:54:24 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft today's minutes', wseltzer. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:54:35 rrsagent, pointer? 17:54:35 See http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-irc#T17-54-35 17:54:43 2) everybody else remains in big room for plenary session on de-id data 17:55:38 time for UA/DAA breakout will last 45 mins 17:55:39 -schunter 17:55:55 break from 11:45 to noon, then another plenary session at noon 17:56:14 +schunter 17:56:22 jackhobaugh has left #dnt 17:57:10 Getting ready for plenary session de-id data 17:58:45 -schunter 17:59:47 -moneill2 17:59:57 haakonfb has joined #dnt 18:02:41 +[IPcaller] 18:02:50 Joanne has joined #DNT 18:03:01 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 18:03:01 +moneill2; got it 18:03:42 -moneill2 18:05:17 W3C has joined #dnt 18:06:02 Peter - beginning session on de-id data 18:06:13 Peter - a couple of goals 18:06:43 q? 18:06:44 amyc has joined #dnt 18:06:50 some overlap between various proposals 18:07:21 Dan - our sense of areas of agreement/disagreement 18:07:25 +[IPcaller] 18:07:31 hwest has joined #dnt 18:07:39 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 18:07:39 +moneill2; got it 18:07:50 working to get Shane's slide up 18:07:56 fwagner has joined #dnt 18:08:01 q? 18:08:08 Rob - this idea is a follow up on a Cambridge proposal 18:08:32 may be similar to consumer group proposal 18:08:56 s/Rob/rvaneijk/ 18:09:10 Dan - would there be a separate data stream where user profiles live? 18:09:31 Dan - retention limit for yellow state is a question 18:09:52 one way hash might not be the only way 18:10:20 Rob - shane and I agree that going from one state to another, there has to be processing involved 18:10:41 Shane - open question on user profile info 18:11:51 company could score a user's interest, but not the URL 18:12:04 data would be kept in aggregate 18:13:33 equation is altered if DNT:1 signal cannot be trusted 18:14:02 if DNT:1 can be trusted, then it could serve as an opt-out from profiling 18:14:22 q? 18:14:35 Rob - question: would data be aggregated immediately? 18:15:22 Dan - is there a 3rd arrow for user profile info? 18:15:58 If DNT:1 signal is trusted, then no user profile info 18:16:09 If not, then user profile would be kept in aggregate 18:16:21 Shane - no more arrows 18:16:33 Peter - one way hashes or other techniques 18:17:04 Shane - yes, we could use many techniques to get to unlinked data 18:17:05 -Jonathan_Mayer 18:17:15 many way to get there 18:17:41 Dan - devil in details, but I think we agree that strong techniques must be used to get to de-id data 18:18:05 John Simpson - question: data retention for yellow state? 18:18:40 Peter - next steps for "whta is a strong enough technique" 18:19:02 Dan - non-normative text satisfies? 18:19:16 Shane and Dan will work on text 18:19:42 ACTION: shane to work with Dan to follow up on defining the "yellow" to "green" transaction with strong enough measures 18:19:43 Created ACTION-402 - Work with Dan to follow up on defining the "yellow" to "green" transaction with strong enough measures [on Shane Wiley - due 2013-05-15]. 18:19:45 Shane and Dan will be assigned an action item to define going from yellow to green state 18:20:16 David Singer - question about de-id 18:21:17 David - q: if de-id user revisits, can you append new data to de-id record 18:21:18 ? 18:21:53 You can never create a map between raw and de-id data 18:22:27 David - de-id record will be added to and will grow over time 18:22:31 Vincent_ has joined #dnt 18:23:18 q? 18:23:35 Shane - but this only happens for a short time because data will eventually move to 3rd state 18:23:46 Rob - de-id is not right term 18:24:24 Rob - data retention and purpose limitations need to be introduced 18:24:35 purpose limitations are permitted uses 18:24:49 q+ 18:25:13 Peter - is middle phase (yellow) pdeudonymous? 18:25:16 Shane - no 18:26:03 q? 18:26:17 diff between yellow and pseudonymous is pseudonymous includes an id 18:26:55 red state is pseudonymous 18:27:22 Peter - what I heard 18:27:52 yellow is psuedonymous but also cannot be used for production 18:28:10 <___> ___ has joined #dnt 18:28:22 Rob - need to get away from using "de-identified" term 18:29:33 John Simpson - question: red is raw data or pseudonymous? 18:29:48 Justin - same 18:30:01 Dan - let's not worry too much about term 18:30:08 important for EU 18:30:18 Dan - I care more about green state of data 18:30:33 q? 18:31:03 Dan - industry wants flexibilty in yellow state and Dan wants data to get to green 18:31:04 q? 18:31:08 q? 18:31:41 ack heff 18:31:45 Heffer - question about data flow from red to yellow 18:31:56 is it real-time? 18:32:06 Shane - could be real time 18:32:08 jeff has joined #dnt 18:32:21 q? 18:32:31 but need to keep for permitted uses 18:32:57 companies would want to move data to yellow so they can immediately begin to use for reporting/analysis 18:33:21 this data set would never be used to affect a real person 18:33:29 Peter - let's move to data retention 18:33:32 and next steps 18:33:56 Shane - two data retention periods 18:34:01 1 for permitted uses 18:34:11 solution is transparency by companies 18:35:10 q+ 18:35:34 also same transparency for moving to different states of data 18:35:52 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 18:36:02 Rob - need different retention periods for different permitted uses 18:36:16 also needs to be transparent 18:36:31 q? 18:36:36 Shane - agree with principle of proportionately 18:36:37 haakonfb has joined #dnt 18:36:37 q+ 18:36:59 jmayer has joined #dnt 18:37:02 Peter - seems to be agreement on transparency and proportionately 18:37:14 proportionality 18:37:40 Justin - the document already includes this 18:38:00 q+ 18:38:22 John - I thought Aleecia wanted normative retention limit for permitted uses 18:38:41 that's right 18:38:45 and then she wanted transparency around diverging from retention limit 18:39:07 …rather, an 'if not otherwise justified' (should) 18:39:22 Aleecia advocated using "should" wrt to retention limits 18:39:57 Thomas - should language with specific retention limits could help with implementation 18:40:16 Peter - do we normative/non-normative/other? 18:40:27 Thomas - unclear 18:40:29 q? 18:40:33 q- 18:40:37 q- 18:40:59 Peter - Ed Felten raised DAA code language 18:41:13 on de-id language 18:41:48 q? 18:41:48 q? 18:41:49 Q 18:42:01 q+ 18:42:06 q? 18:42:19 Ed Felten thinks the DAA Multi Site definition of de-id data might work 18:42:44 dan Auerbach: can live with DAA language for the green data 18:42:47 Dan - would prefer W3C language but not huge objection 18:42:48 Q+ 18:43:07 Peter - consumer groups should look at whether they can live with it 18:43:23 Dan - important to have non-normative examples, which do not exist in the DAA code 18:43:59 shane: DAA language going from red to yellow 18:44:09 DAA thinks their de-id language goes from red to yellow 18:44:27 Q? 18:44:33 q- 18:44:54 David - if there is a data breach in red data, that is significant 18:45:01 yellow data breach is smaller risk 18:45:13 W3C has joined #dnt 18:45:22 green data breach is insignificant 18:45:49 Shane - if we release yellow or green data, then there is little risk to user. 18:46:00 risk with yellow data is more about internal abuse 18:46:21 Shane - i.e. evil employee 18:46:40 Dan - I disagree. there is more risk with yellow data 18:46:54 Dan - need to focus on limits on yellow data 18:47:26 David - need to focus on principles 18:47:45 Peter - Ed Felten said something similar 18:47:53 MarkVickers has joined #dnt 18:47:59 would prefer to have principles in normative text with examples in non-normative 18:48:09 It's spec vs. best practices. 18:48:33 Peter - process going forward 18:49:27 Shane - I don't believe industry will be ok with "shoulds" on arbitrary retention limits 18:49:39 too many different business models 18:49:51 non-normative text might be ok 18:50:08 transparency applied to all data states is more important 18:50:39 Shane - only delta is the use of "shoulds" with transparency vs. always using transparency 18:51:03 Justin - proportionately doesn't provide an end point for use of data 18:51:26 there always seems to be another valid use 18:51:40 Peter - what do they use in the EU? 18:52:03 Rob - can use "legitimate business interest" test 18:52:22 in this case, you balance the size of the instrument vs the impact on the user 18:52:46 we don't say how long retention limits are 18:52:51 q? 18:52:59 q+ 18:53:19 Peter - will break soon, five more minutes 18:53:50 Dan - really hate vagueness, want precision 18:54:03 Dan - favor Aleecia's approach of using shoulds 18:54:40 In European Union law there generally acknowledged to be four stages to a proportionality test, namely,[3] there must be a legitimate aim for a measure the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect) the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing int[CUT] 18:54:45 Peter - have heard two positions here. Let's focus on next steps 18:54:53 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_%28law%29 18:55:05 Privacy advocates to look at DAA definition of de-id data 18:55:43 What do we need to do to outline red, yellow, green states 18:55:52 Justin - need normative text on this 18:56:22 Justin - ok with DAA definition, but need to clarify whether it applies to red-yellow or yellow-green 18:56:39 Justin - writing text on 3 states should be easy 18:56:45 Justin to draft 18:56:58 ACTION: justin to write language on red / yellow / green 18:56:58 Created ACTION-403 - Write language on red / yellow / green [on Justin Brookman - due 2013-05-15]. 18:56:59 Next steps on data retention? 18:57:26 John - are we talking about data retention for red state too? 18:58:18 Shane - would address retnetion for each state 18:58:54 Thomas - let's have a small group outline the differences or find a compromise 18:59:43 Thomas - 5 or 6 people precisely define open questions and/or find compromise 18:59:52 fwagner has joined #dnt 19:00:08 John, Dan, Shane, Walt, Justin, Rob, others? 19:00:48 5-10 minute break and then reconvene for one more session before lunch 19:00:56 readouts from breakout sessions after 10 minute break 19:00:58 -moneill2 19:07:27 W3C has joined #dnt 19:11:23 +[IPcaller] 19:11:36 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 19:11:36 +moneill2; got it 19:14:02 haakonfb has joined #dnt 19:16:06 This session has two purposes: 1) get a lunch ticket from david -- take only 1; and 2) readouts from the two groups 19:16:08 npdoty_ has joined #dnt 19:16:13 amyc has joined #dnt 19:16:18 first is someone from the browser group 19:16:33 ... but the browser group didn't delegate someone for the readout 19:16:43 ... so we're going to start with hte readout from the other session 19:16:52 scribenick: vinay 19:16:52 Topic: Report back from Breakouts 19:17:03 Peter: on the de-id issue, as you all saw, there was important convergence amongst the sides 19:17:09 ... but there are still hard issues people need to work on 19:17:14 ... dont want to overstate the convergance 19:17:27 ... there's a group of 7 people tasked at taking a shot at next steps/work items 19:17:49 ... one thing he's asked is for people to look at normative language in DAA code (which ed felton thought worth considering ...) 19:17:57 Zakim, who is on the phone? 19:17:57 On the phone I see [Apple], bilcorry (muted), moneill2 19:18:14 ... if it turns out as good (or better), it may help since a lot of companies have already committed to complying 19:18:24 ... there was also talk on drafting language on the 3 stages 19:18:30 ... Justin took that action item 19:18:36 afowler has joined #dnt 19:18:37 ... the subgroup of 7-8 are meeting now 19:18:46 ... Peter asking Wendy for a brief read out 19:19:22 TLR: Are we talking about a situation a bit more time is needed before we need a useful conversation in the group? 19:19:27 ... what stage are we at? 19:19:50 Alan C: yes, a lot of progress has been made. Pretty wide consensus on what we're talking about when we say browser. 19:20:13 ... hope that there is some language in the near future to share iwth the group 19:20:28 ... encouraged. one of the more constructive groups he's been on 19:21:25 Adrian: Spent bulk of time talking about a few points: 1) distinction between browsers and things that aren't browsers; 2) trying to get away from misunderstandings of what a user agent is/isn't 19:21:36 (we think about people browsing the web when we speak about browsers) 19:22:06 ... if we agree that a user must be involved in setting/clearing the DNT preference, those things that are not browsers that get in the way of setting DNT are automatically excluded 19:22:37 ... as we see more devices get connected to the internet, we don't want to get bogged down with this 19:22:47 Chapell has joined #DNT 19:22:53 ... more gray areas we need to think about. there's a line somewhere. We need to think clearly how we define that line 19:23:00 .... and who decides who falls on what side of that line 19:23:34 ... while we can agree that the device requring many steps (not sure I got this right) is out of scope, whereas FF is within scope.. There's a lot in between. 19:23:44 ... there's some homework we need to do, but there is greater clarity 19:24:09 ... second thing they talked about is who is responsible for ensuring that the signal sent from the browser is following the setting that the user set 19:24:18 ... in the draft framework, point 6c 19:24:47 ... some of what they talked about went back to the general principles (that we all agree this is something the user is involved in setting) 19:25:02 ... from Adrian's perspective (and he thinks there is some support for this) that this is something we have to address over time 19:25:16 ... can't tell right now how this setting may be attacked by different entities over time 19:25:38 ... prefers not to think thru all attacks now because the attack may not be an actual attack used 19:26:09 Peter: here's procedurally what we anticipate 19:26:21 ... when we break from this, the de-id group will gather 19:26:45 ... there is an effort/task to write-up the browser meeting to accurately reflect next steps 19:26:55 ... the idea is that the group decide the next steps 19:27:16 ... request for the groups to report back next steps 19:27:28 ... believe we're heading to a session at 2pm to have a short document that reflects the next steps 19:27:34 ... to discuss how to describe it 19:27:52 ... ex. we recommend: a) proceeding with this work; b) taking it back to x, y, and z. 19:28:03 ... discuss how to proceed to move forward 19:28:13 ... Yianni will be taking text (back on the room) 19:28:31 ... susan will coordiante with yianni re: measurement; Wendy for brwosers; TLR for de-id 19:28:36 re-convene at 2pm 19:28:44 TLR: Suggest getting a large lunch table 19:28:55 David: we have the big tables in the back by the window reserved for us 19:29:01 TLR: Take the large table for de-id 19:29:33 ... also, same question as before... are there other conversations that should be happening amongst subsets of the room between now and 2pm 19:29:49 johnsimpson has left #dnt 19:30:06 Dan: We still haven't made progress on de-ids... i hope the lack of a breakout session isn't interpreted to mean it isn't important 19:30:15 break for lunch. start promptly at 2 19:30:23 robsherman has joined #dnt 19:30:32 -moneill2 19:30:45 -bilcorry 19:31:57 efelten has joined #dnt 19:42:27 afowler has joined #dnt 19:48:55 efelten has joined #dnt 20:00:34 robsherman has joined #dnt 20:08:32 afowler has joined #dnt 20:16:49 npdoty has joined #dnt 20:17:13 vinay has joined #dnt 20:27:46 fielding has joined #dnt 20:32:45 npdoty_ has joined #dnt 20:40:06 justin has joined #dnt 20:41:09 afowler has joined #dnt 20:43:45 Dominique has joined #dnt 20:56:11 Zakim, who is on the phone? 20:56:11 On the phone I see [Apple] 20:56:29 Zakim, mute Apple 20:56:29 sorry, npdoty_, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 20:58:01 afowler has joined #dnt 20:58:47 +[IPcaller] 20:58:51 -[IPcaller] 20:59:08 +bilcorry 20:59:17 Zakim, mute me 20:59:17 bilcorry should now be muted 20:59:25 +[IPcaller] 20:59:32 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 20:59:32 +moneill2; got it 20:59:50 bryan has joined #dnt 20:59:59 jeffwilson has joined #dnt 21:01:10 + +1.917.318.aaff 21:02:42 + +1.215.480.aagg 21:02:57 Zakim, aaff is Chapell 21:02:57 +Chapell; got it 21:03:10 Zakim, aagg is WaltMichel_Comcast 21:03:10 +WaltMichel_Comcast; got it 21:04:58 +Mark_Vickers 21:05:38 Joanne has joined #DNT 21:05:41 robsherman has joined #dnt 21:06:08 +Bryan 21:06:29 efelten has joined #dnt 21:10:53 robsherman1 has joined #dnt 21:11:26 -WaltMichel_Comcast 21:11:30 Zakim, mute Apple 21:11:30 [Apple] should now be muted 21:11:38 Zakim, unmute Apple 21:11:38 [Apple] should no longer be muted 21:11:39 meme has joined #dnt 21:11:44 +WaltMichel_Comcast 21:11:57 another 10 or 15 minutes, thanks; restart by 2:30 21:12:16 Zakim, mute Apple 21:12:17 [Apple] should now be muted 21:12:18 -moneill2 21:12:18 -Chapell 21:12:29 Joanne has joined #DNT 21:12:29 -bilcorry 21:26:02 -Mark_Vickers 21:27:44 +bilcorry 21:27:50 Zakim, mute me 21:27:50 bilcorry should now be muted 21:28:20 +[IPcaller] 21:28:41 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 21:28:41 +moneill2; got it 21:28:42 +Chapell 21:28:55 strider has joined #dnt 21:30:55 Zakim, who is making noise? 21:31:06 npdoty_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: moneill2 (19%) 21:31:11 Zakim, mute moneill2 21:31:11 moneill2 should now be muted 21:31:29 Dominique has joined #dnt 21:34:15 dsinger_ has joined #dnt 21:40:07 -moneill2 21:40:23 adrianba_ has joined #dnt 21:40:28 W3C has joined #dnt 21:40:46 +[IPcaller] 21:40:58 -[IPcaller] 21:41:15 +[IPcaller] 21:41:20 Zakim, who is on the phone? 21:41:20 On the phone I see [Apple] (muted), Bryan, WaltMichel_Comcast, bilcorry (muted), Chapell, [IPcaller] 21:41:26 npdoty_ has joined #dnt 21:41:29 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 21:41:29 +moneill2; got it 21:41:51 Zakim, who is making noise? 21:42:03 npdoty_, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 21:42:05 jchester2 has joined #dnt 21:42:27 Topic: Afternoon 21:42:35 scribenick: npdoty 21:42:45 peterswire: apologies for the delay, slow in getting text from all these places 21:43:04 q? 21:43:06 ... while waiting on copies, I want to get a sense of the room on how today went 21:43:22 cant hear 21:43:31 ... Dan wanted to make some comments on behalf of some privacy folks 21:43:34 JC_ has joined #DNT 21:43:34 afowler has joined #dnt 21:43:37 jchester has joined #dnt 21:43:38 amyc_ has joined #dnt 21:43:40 Ari has joined #dnt 21:43:46 Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt 21:43:56 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 21:43:58 -moneill2 21:44:36 +[IPcaller] 21:45:02 I am getting no sound when I call in 21:45:05 -Chapell 21:45:35 +Chapell 21:45:52 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 21:45:52 +moneill2; got it 21:46:03 -Chapell 21:46:15 21:46:20 JC has joined #DNT 21:46:23 aleecia has joined #dnt 21:46:58 peterswire has joined #dnt 21:47:21 -moneill2 21:47:44 +[IPcaller] 21:47:50 21:48:04 I still cant hear 21:48:10 adrianba has joined #dnt 21:48:12 Zakim, unmute Apple 21:48:12 [Apple] should no longer be muted 21:48:18 ok now 21:48:22 peterswire: a number of issues where progress has been made 21:48:30 ... want to thank you for stepping up last night and working today 21:48:35 paulohm has joined #dnt 21:48:39 ... appreciated, because this is work should be doing 21:48:51 ... anybody who wants to make opening comments from the day? 21:48:53 q? 21:48:56 i|ok now|Topic: Wrap Up 21:48:59 q+ lmastria 21:49:08 q- 21:49:14 ack Lmastria 21:49:15 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 21:49:17 q? 21:49:23 Lmastria_DAA: would echo peter's comments on constructive dialog today 21:49:27 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 21:49:38 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 21:49:42 ... my sense is that there's been a fair amount of progress made today that wasn't made at other w3c events I've been at, so I'm grateful for that 21:49:54 Bryan has joined #dnt 21:49:54 ... see a path forward, using the framework as a skeletal document that's how I see it at least 21:50:08 ... we are committed to seeing if we can put flesh on those bones, a lot of hard work, frankly 21:50:25 q? 21:50:26 ... what we are committing to here is a lot of hard work, but if there is progress to be made, we are certainly supportive of moving forward in that direction 21:50:46 peterswire: I'm going to walk through the term sheet, an attempt to capture the work from this morning 21:51:15 ... I'll read through it basically, chance for edits and chance to make points 21:51:34 Dominique has joined #dnt 21:51:49 ... at the top, "At the close of our meeting... " "sufficient progress ... to merit moving ahead toward the Last Call deadline" 21:52:33 ... audience measurement, specific changes to esomar text, from Rigo and Susan, "calibrate and validate", work with Rob and Jeff and DAA as well 21:52:57 ... second topic concerns browsers, initial versions of our spec will address general browsers for the Web 21:53:07 ... a few principles, vendor neutral 21:53:17 ... Do Not Track should reflect user choice, anti-tampering to be considered 21:53:17 -[IPcaller] 21:53:42 +[IPcaller] 21:53:49 Link to paper being described? 21:53:57 ... third part on de-identification, three-state as proposed by Shane, proportionality requirements and transparency and retention for those different states 21:54:11 ... homework assigned to review the DAA language that may be helpful 21:54:16 -[IPcaller] 21:54:43 +[IPcaller] 21:55:00 ... 4. retention periods remain an important issue: proportionality, transparency, no precise MUST limits 21:55:13 -[IPcaller] 21:55:18 jmayer has joined #dnt 21:55:24 ... 5. ongoing discussions of unique identifiers as a critical issue for advocates, inviting proposals to solve this problem 21:55:41 ... super importance of this issue to many members of the working group, so may continue even beyond Last Call 21:55:45 q+ 21:55:51 q+ 21:56:15 ... I've heard it a bunch of times, said it on Monday Tuesday Wednesday, that the ability to say that Do Not Track will mean in a simple thing to say to users is that no identifier cookies 21:56:26 ... a couple minutes for Dan to give perspective 21:56:27 q+ 21:56:29 q? 21:56:38 dan_auerbach: big thanks to the chairs, an incredible amount of work you've put in 21:56:41 21:56:41 +q 21:57:09 dan_auerbach: appreciating that some progress was made today, but wanted to note that we punted on unique identifiers today, pushing harder issues further down 21:57:22 ... can't do that indefinitely, and that's what you see here in bullet point 5 21:57:41 ... without that, I think we should come to some agreement to disagree -- without a path forward, don't want to continue spinning our wheels indefinitely 21:57:44 ack dan_auerbach 21:58:27 ... shouldn't signal that at Last Call we still have a shouting match, wouldn't want to have all these major issues undecided 21:58:51 peterswire: want to repeat, this has to come from you all, not from chairs and w3c staff 21:59:07 +MikeO 21:59:18 q+ 21:59:19 q? 21:59:42 ... when there's hard things, w3c process works best when we have people go off to hard issues and come back with smart proposals 21:59:57 johnsimpson: want to echo congratulations for chair and staff, I think possibly there's been incremental progress 21:59:59 WaltMichel has joined #DNT 22:00:06 susanisrael has joined #dnt 22:00:20 q+ 22:00:34 ... but what I have sensed is that we have stepped back to deal with high-level principles, sense of agreement may be because of high-level principles, as we all agree about transparency 22:00:37 ... devil is in the details 22:00:48 ... as was documented by the list of many still open issues 22:00:57 ... may just be as a pessimist, I'm always being positively surprised 22:01:07 ... not sure about reaching agreement by the end of July 22:01:35 ... I've been committed to this and also been party to some outside talks that may or may not have made progress 22:02:44 q+ to suggest that the chairs and staff do a pass on the Compliance Issues and Action Items and propose a clean-up (many are 6 months old and might not be relevant) 22:02:44 q? 22:02:44 johnsimpson has left #dnt 22:02:47 adrianba_ has joined #dnt 22:02:52 q? 22:02:59 ... just might not happen, doesn't mean that we're bad people or that W3C is a bad place, just couldn't 22:02:59 jmayer: echo thanks to peter, thomas, nick and matthias remotely 22:02:59 ... feeling of cooperation, glad to work with all of you, has genuinely been a pleasure 22:03:00 ... but it's very difficult to see consensus or a path to consensus at this point 22:03:00 ... have this parking lot over here (UAs and UIs, unique IDs, deidentification, ) 22:03:01 ack johnsim 22:03:07 ack jmayer 22:03:39 ... may have made some progress, but if we were this far apart before, we are this far apart now [with arms, showing only slightly closer] 22:04:47 adrianba__ has joined #dnt 22:04:51 ... very imprudent if we got to Last Call deadline and then just pushed again 22:04:51 jchester: reiterate thanks to staff, chairs and colleagues 22:04:51 ... have to address the issues in the parking lot 22:04:51 ... I know for us we cannot go forward postponing the unique ID decision before the last call, it has to be a part and can be a part of the framework we address in the next few weeks 22:04:53 ... without it I don't think we can make the progress 22:05:18 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 22:05:23 fielding: progress on this depends on the definition of tracking, willing to turn off anything if it's part of the definition of tracking, but not willing to turn off user identifiers for reasons that are not following a user across multiple sites 22:05:25 Q? 22:05:39 ... reason is not that we want to track you, just don't want to inhibit innovation for non-privacy-concerns 22:05:41 +Chapell 22:05:41 q+ to address text 22:05:41 ack jchester 22:05:44 ack fielding 22:05:47 My concern: there is a very high probability that we get to Last Call without consensus on the major issues, nor even a viable path to consensus on those issues. 22:05:47 ack susanisrael 22:05:50 ... if there are actual privacy concerns we'll address them 22:06:17 Can't hear the speakers well 22:06:25 susanisrael: if we define the scope of what we're trying to achieve in the Last Call is narrower than the list of tracking-related issues, can we address those in later versions? 22:07:08 dsinger: simple text change, remove "preference" before "interface" 22:07:26 ... don't want to have an apparent preference for existing browsers 22:07:38 peterswire: serious heartache? -- no. 22:07:52 dsinger: ask the chairs and staff to go through issues and actions and orphan the ones that are no longer relevant. 22:08:02 peterswire: the chair welcomes that, now will do that now that we have some clarity 22:08:04 q? 22:08:09 Wileys has joined #DNT 22:08:12 paulohm: thank you for welcoming in a stranger 22:08:19 ... wanted to put a marker down rather than specific text 22:08:20 Ari has joined #dnt 22:08:32 +q 22:08:40 aleecia has joined #dnt 22:08:46 q? 22:08:48 q+ 22:08:50 ... the room I think I had a lot of consensus about the general browsing interface, that was a big issue for Ed (and wasn't in the room) 22:09:17 ... suggest brackets around the first sentence 22:09:23 ack paulohm 22:09:48 dsinger: tried to put a word for the general principles, the name is just the definition of the general principles, not an additional requirement 22:09:53 ack dsinger 22:09:53 dsinger, you wanted to suggest that the chairs and staff do a pass on the Compliance Issues and Action Items and propose a clean-up (many are 6 months old and might not be 22:09:56 ... relevant) 22:09:57 ack johnsimpson 22:09:57 johnsimpson, you wanted to address text 22:10:09 johnsimpson: appreciate your highlighting the issue of unique identifiers all week long 22:10:26 -Bryan 22:10:41 ... my concrete proposal for the text, would remove "potentially structuring ongoing work past last call" 22:10:45 q? 22:10:52 peterswire: see no strong objections to that? 22:11:06 lmastria: just want to point out for today, we can evaluate the problem and see what solutions there might be 22:11:17 ... to commit ourselves to solve the problem period may be a step too far between now and Last Call 22:11:29 q+ 22:11:35 ... don't want to prejudice one way or another, just be transparent about it 22:11:42 Chapell has joined #DNT 22:11:43 peterswire: is the problem "solve"? 22:11:49 +q 22:12:09 anon has joined #dnt 22:12:23 …um, the working group decides whether to go to last call, not any individual participant. we may decide to get that industry review knowing we have a question open. 22:12:45 johnsimpson: if we can't find a way to solve that issue, I don't think we can go to Last Call 22:12:45 ... I hope we can solve it, I've seen some hints in this room and other places, but I don't see how you go to Last Call with a major issue hanging out there 22:12:45 peterswire: I've heard caution from Lou about saying that this can be done by then 22:13:02 ... the language of ongoing discussions doesn't define a certain outcome 22:13:09 q? 22:13:19 TS has joined #DNT 22:13:21 johnsimpson: agree, the point I'm trying to make is that this is so important we can't go to Last Call without addressing it 22:13:22 ack jmayer 22:13:53 jmayer: to PaulOhm, "general user agents" might rule out Operating Systems, which I don't think we want to 22:14:09 peterswire: can't speak to that particular meeting 22:14:33 jmayer: suggest that we account for user agents other than general purpose web browsers, stuff that we know about already 22:14:53 ... in the interest of future proofing it would be a mistake to scope that down 22:15:32 paulohm: principle 1 about "general" Web, reserving the possibility that that might be an issue for Ed and the agency 22:15:33 dsinger: maybe I should explain why this is relevant ... 22:15:38 adrianba_ has joined #dnt 22:15:48 ... in a closed garden, just a piece of software that loads its own help pages, we're just not concerned about you 22:16:07 ... point 2, you have the ability for a user to express his choice, if you can't do that, we're not sure how to work with you because it's important that you can express a choice 22:16:33 ... point 3, that you actually implement the protocol as designed, use the confirmation (in JavaScript), ask for and receive an exception 22:16:47 q? 22:16:47 ... all about how to scope to how to make the thing work, rather than limiting innovation 22:17:09 ... the other concern was simply that we haven't spent a lot of time discussing different user agents in this room, and they might raise interesting questions 22:17:24 peterswire: there was a productive meeting around the things in Item 2, but don't have specific normative language 22:17:46 ... would be having the normal process, proposing and objecting to and discussing normative text 22:18:12 paulohm: agree that we should discuss; I just think ed will want to say something about this and don't want him to give up any chance 22:18:32 peterswire: we make consensus on this text based on who we have in the room 22:18:37 Edited wording from Susan & Rigo on point 1: 22:18:38 q? 22:18:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013May/0048.html 22:18:46 paulohm: then I think we should talk now and I can try to represent him 22:19:04 q+ 22:19:06 tlr: jmayer expressed concern about future proofing, would it help to note an opening and interest in looking future-ward to other user agents 22:19:28 paulohm: if this has to be language we all agree on 22:19:36 ... "can access the Web" would be principle 1 22:19:45 ... 2 and 3 are still pretty limitative 22:20:04 "Can access the web" is extremely broad and cuts away at the spirit of what was discussed in today's one-off session 22:20:35 tlr: I think "Web" is something we all know what we mean by it 22:20:51 jmayer: how about just things that speak HTTP? 22:21:22 ack aleecia 22:21:35 ... there are things that speak HTTP, are Web APIs 22:21:36 +q 22:21:39 ... I have additional points 22:21:41 Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt 22:21:48 BerinSzoka has joined #DNT 22:21:55 I would suggest we wait to discuss #1 until Ed is in the room (also me) 22:21:58 Ari has joined #dnt 22:22:05 q+ 22:22:09 aleecia: I could not support the document exactly as is, have to leave, can get there from here but maybe adopt on the next phone call 22:22:27 +1 to aleecia on #1 22:22:31 ... for example, on #1, we could after we have text determine whether audience measurement is a permitted use 22:23:02 ... on #2, fine to have priorities on the agenda, I would have a problem to punt non-browser UAs beyond Last Call 22:23:23 ... 4, wouldn't want to guarantee that we don't have MUSTs on time limits 22:23:33 another +1 that we still need to decide whether there's a permitted use for audience measurement for #1 22:23:44 ... 5, just want a resolution on unique identifiers 22:23:58 ... don't think Last Call in July, but I agree that it's worth continuing 22:24:03 q? 22:24:04 ack adrian 22:24:06 ack adrianba 22:24:20 adrianba_: if worst came to worst, I can live with Section 2, but I had a couple points to make: 22:24:46 ... re "meaningful information" minor concern that we were being too restrictive about "settings and help" screens, I thought it was rather all of the user interface 22:24:55 ... instead "provide meaningful interface to users 22:24:59 ... but a minor point 22:25:38 ... going back to the Web, general web, world wide web, "general browsable web" was my term which came from a past w3c meeting to distinguish between Web pages and services that are on the Web, browsed to by a browser 22:25:47 ... my explanation of what I meant 22:26:01 susan and rigo have put a link to a shorter version of point 1, more appropriate to the term sheet, above in irc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013May/0048.html 22:26:10 reminder: DNT applies to more than HTTP 22:26:28 peterswire: suggest put back "general browseable web" for that meaning 22:26:32 SPDY is long since agreed to 22:26:49 q? 22:27:03 paulohm: not services, but other things that might matter but don't count as "general browseable web" 22:27:21 adrianba_: fine with that, my comments are in the minutes 22:27:39 peterswire: you also said meaningful information to users, that was a text proposal change? adrianba: yes. 22:27:51 q? 22:27:58 rrsagent, pointer? 22:27:58 See http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-irc#T22-27-58 22:28:10 Lmastria_DAA: the way we began the week was the framework, the framework that it would be uniform inside settings as we think of them today, that's the origin 22:28:28 adrianba_: I understand that that's there for that reason, but I don't think that's what we came out of with agreement to 22:28:39 ... we did not talk about scoping down the places in which this might be displayed 22:28:59 ... if we're all saying is that we're only interested in pursuing conversation about text that's displayed in settings and helps screens 22:29:18 peterswire: what about "such as, settings and help screens" to give a familiar example, are you okay with that? 22:29:31 room: some yeses. lmastria: let me think about it, I'd to have to reconsider how it flows 22:29:37 we can't read the screen. could we please increase the screen size and maximize the window? 22:29:48 er, text size 22:30:48 peterswire: "with reference to user agents that can" 22:31:13 historically untrue 22:31:30 haakonfb has joined #dnt 22:31:35 Lmastria_DAA: we've spent 14 18 more months on browser-based mechanisms, browsers as we thought of them about the desktop web 22:31:40 ... a lot has changed since then, sure, there should be work done on mobile browsers and refridgerators 22:31:47 ... let's scope to what we've really been thinking about 22:31:51 From very very early on we have talked about apps, mobile, SPDY. 22:31:58 ... 1.1 can be for other things 22:32:09 ... we're trying to scope appropriately to what our expectations have been all throughout 22:32:11 We agreed to put in terms of HTTP but not limit to, to make it easier to talk about 22:32:13 q+ 22:32:21 ... making that change, we are in effect trying to boil the ocean here 22:32:38 peterswire: strikes me as an important discussion, heard it expressed strongly by Paul Ohm and Lou, in different directions 22:32:57 ... we're going to need to figure out what -- this paragraph could disappear or be shortened 22:33:31 PaulGlist: to not the lose good consensus building from the breakout session on this point, I suggest restoring "general browseable" before "Web" and pointing people to "other user agents warrant future study" 22:33:43 ... there was an intention to scope the work to everything we know as current browser base 22:34:18 paulohm: [no longer channeling ed] I heard that we'll take those three bullets back and study what they mean 22:34:40 ... felt like it was an incomplete agreement, not sure general browseable was the main thing that we're working on 22:35:08 aleecia: we have been talking from the very beginning about this, not just HTTP, yes this is mobile, yes this is apps, agreement from the beginning 22:35:30 ... talk about it in terms of browsing the web, from the very beginning of this group, the consensus we had arrived at before some people in the room arrived, just want to make the history of that clears 22:35:30 +[IPcaller] 22:35:35 -MikeO 22:35:58 peterswire: when there was an event with the FTC Chairman and the White House last year, there was an announcement of a browser-based choice mechanism 22:36:02 zakim, [IPCaller] is me 22:36:02 +moneill2; got it 22:36:16 ... we have real history that points both ways here, in good faith, those different histories are coming together here 22:36:43 ... an effort to move to functional criteria, but there's an important part of work from people who are comfortable using browsers 22:36:52 ... I had thought we had some agreement on that this morning 22:37:33 jchester: we did go beyond, lou said we do go back and talk to colleagues, talked about apps with browsers, acknowledged a broad range of browser use, talking about mobile app capabilities and you folks are very comfortable with and a norm with which people will interact 22:37:37 MarkVick_ has joined #dnt 22:37:41 q? 22:37:42 ? 22:37:43 q? 22:37:52 adrianba_: what aleecia said about the text of the draft specs including things beyond the browsers is true 22:38:02 ... the goal of the session today was to see where would we find agreement 22:38:19 ... let's start right now by scoping the impact of things that we now are well-understood 22:38:25 ack jchester 22:38:26 Mark_Vickers has joined #dnt 22:38:26 ... not limit the future implication 22:38:36 ... scope this narrower than what we've talked about in the past 22:38:50 ... of course there's the future, but we're trying to work on the current document right now 22:38:55 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 22:39:02 q+ 22:39:27 q- 22:39:44 ack aleecia 22:39:46 jchester: have a problem with 5, don't want to call it a "problem", rather "an issue we must address now" 22:40:20 ... suggest: "We acknowledge we must address this now." 22:40:40 ... a serious way that this be addressed in the next few weeks 22:41:00 22:41:12 problem / issue / challenge ? 22:41:13 i think that there are limits to benefits of real-time editing term sheet when we are going to need to review normative spec text later 22:41:35 peterswire: I understood this as "we agree to work on these issues, not a final statement of answers" 22:41:55 ... when we are scoping work, I would think we have a lot more room to say that we are going to work in this direction and at that point work out particular words 22:42:07 ... I have a concern, partly about time that we won't have everyone in the room for all of this 22:42:13 I can't live with this document as written. I need to see more Oxford commas before I can support it. 22:42:31 ... shows a resurgence of some positional things that I don't think are @@@ productive 22:43:01 peterswire: underscore "the following specific tasks have emerged from this face-to-face", the task for this paper is to note that we have work to do and note that there's work to do, not agreement on final text 22:43:08 ... it could be there are people who don't want to have text today 22:43:18 ... we could discuss whether we should have text today 22:43:40 ... I had hoped talking to many of you before that we had a close idea that this is what we're going to work on, that's what I saw our exercise as 22:43:59 on point 5, can you say you invite proposals to address this issue, without then saying going forward, thus not determining whether we do it in the near or long term (as that is to be determined) 22:44:01 ... there may be reasons why some of you don't want to have a position "we are going to work on" 22:44:23 ... saying "we agree that this will be solved" seems different from "serious list of things we're going to talk about" 22:44:42 ... "critical" is a quite strong word 22:44:55 tlr: what I heard is that jchester is fine with 5 now 22:45:13 fielding: we're talking about things out of this meeting 22:45:17 could someone point out that the IRC screen isn't updating because the scroll bar isn't at bottom? 22:45:28 peterswire: you have not waived your ability to say that there are other issues in the spec 22:45:46 ... we had a good conversation on browser stuff, everyone told me it was a good conversation and we can move forward 22:45:56 ... we had a discussion on retention limits, green-yellow-red 22:46:11 ... highlight a critical issue for advocates that advocates wanted to be highlighted 22:46:36 peterswire: is the group able to live with the document? 22:46:55 tlr: we have about five points here that are summaries of discussions today, by their nature imperfect 22:47:21 ... an attempt to summarize the conversations we had; if the summary is inaccurate or if there are things we can't live with 22:47:53 ... go through the individual paragraphs, and then talk about the top paragraph 22:48:36 peterswire: didn't post it online because we didn't want it to be attributed to people in the room without getting agreement 22:48:43 tlr: fine on 5? room: yes. 22:48:48 -Chapell 22:48:56 susan: rigo and I posted a link in IRC to a shorter version 22:49:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013May/0048.html 22:49:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013May/0048.html 22:49:39 justin: whatever language we go with, we don't have agreement that a permitted use is necessary, I remain convince that we won't need this 22:50:04 rigo: you have an alternative suggestion, we have to figure out whether this address their issue 22:50:08 +Chapell 22:50:29 justin: Shane's proposal too, just want to make clear that not consensus that a permitted use will be needed 22:50:56 amyc: I think what Peter is saying is that for a lot of this stuff is something being discussed today, all of this end up as normative text where we can tweak and discuss normative text 22:51:18 ... maybe have something in the first paragraph that everything is subject to our discussion and approval as a group 22:51:35 justin: fix spelling. 22:52:25 Wileys: many side conversations about living in the yellow vs. the red state 22:52:52 peterswire: substantive requirement in the current proposed text that it be pseudonymous 22:53:02 tlr: important point, we have it in the minutes, can live without it being in the document 22:53:10 oxford commas! 22:53:13 ... other pieces in 1 that need to be in the document? 22:53:42 We could add the phrase ", as well as whether data must be deidentified for this use." to the last sentence. 22:53:47 Lmastria_DAA: I don't know if this helps, "term sheet" means a lot of stuff, perhaps a different phrasing might help 22:53:52 room: "work plan"? 22:54:22 afowler has joined #dnt 22:54:26 Document title: "Consensus Statement." 22:54:35 Lmastria_DAA: the second piece, maybe walking backwards a little, if we are as a group having some issues about putting too much language in one place or another, could we just bullet point rather than being so descriptive / detailed? 22:54:53 tlr: I think we are close to agreement on 2 out of the 5, then starting text and the title / then the entire thing 22:55:17 peterswire: any changes to 3? not live with? 22:55:33 Wileys: I think something a little clearer would be that two new action items were created 22:55:49 ... 1) state the three-state in a principled way (tied to proportionality and retention limits) 22:56:18 ...wants to get important people's input but notes the agenda runs to 5pm... 22:56:49 ... Yahoo diagram stuff would be non-normative text and Dan's non-normative text of examples that would satisfy those principles 22:56:57 ... Dan has agreed to build the transparency template 22:58:09 jmayer: on 3, use "three-state", a reference to Shane's proposal with one-way hashing -- three states in general, not just Yahoo! specific? 22:58:21 ... not agreement that Shane's example would be sufficient 22:58:53 tlr: one approach would be that we take that model, alternatively, abstract one level up to principles and separate principles and implementation 22:59:06 ... might just be an issue with non-grammatical rough version 22:59:16 tlr: "possible approach" 22:59:31 jmayer: is this just agreement to a possible approach that many people disagree with? 22:59:39 22:59:50 wileys: just intended as a proposal 23:00:02 Lmastria_DAA: on #4, suggest we pull out the stuff about a template, not something I've heard about 23:00:34 Anyone driving up to San Francisco? I'm looking for a ride 23:00:36 tlr: idea was that Dan would write down what he thought would be important pieces about transparency 23:00:49 ... a work item rather than an agreement 23:00:58 peterswire: add "for consideration, by the group" 23:01:01 ...would really appreciate it if people could express their own concerns and leave the chairs to do their job of determining consensus 23:01:08 Lmastria_DAA: the whole idea of a template is a little troubling, partly because of the surprise 23:01:10 Berin - I wonder if you can ride one of Apple's shuttles up to SF. Might be a question to David 23:01:34 paulohm has joined #dnt 23:01:35 wileys: fine to remove it, but the work item will still happen 23:01:50 tlr: is the problem the word "template"? lou: yes. 23:02:12 peterswire: on 3 and 4, any other significant changes needed? 23:02:58 justin: suggest we take out the "not include MUST level limits", both incorrect given the current state, and aleecia's concern, and I suggest that we remove it 23:03:05 -bilcorry 23:03:29 -Chapell 23:03:45 danauer: this is all part of a proposal, a new idea that we're exploring 23:04:25 justin: "agreement to examine" rather than just "agreement" 23:04:34 [resolved by moving up to 3, instead of 4.] 23:04:41 justin: just remove the clause, doesn't match other things 23:05:08 peterswire: is there anyone with major heartburn if we don't have it? we know in the minutes that it's a thought and we'll study it 23:05:42 ... no other changes on 3 23:06:39 jmayer: there were two three-state proposals, Shane and Dan 23:07:09 danauer: "a three-state" and drop attribution room: general agreement. 23:07:52 paulohm: minutes reflect my understanding of what general browseable web 23:08:27 ... general browseable web is a term used by w3c in other contexts 23:08:29 fwagner has joined #dnt 23:08:37 ... to exclude devices that use http as a service 23:08:42 ... and exclude things like dog collars. 23:09:09 dan_auerbach has joined #dnt 23:09:11 tlr: web services in the WS* meaning 23:09:22 paulohm: jmayer also had objections 23:09:55 jmayer: if the only limitation is about dog collars, I don't care... but if it doesn't encompass Firefox OS, or iOS which have pervasive implementations, then I'm not on board 23:10:16 hober: we even used examples like embededd UI WebView 23:10:32 jmayer: in firefox os, you could have an app that received DNT 23:10:47 tlr: have a broad sense of view of the priorities is 23:11:10 jmayer: my understanding is that platforms like ffx os and ios would access the general web 23:11:15 q+ 23:12:44 q- justin 23:13:14 AMEN. Also, note, rush hour... 23:13:28 npdoty: I wouldn't be comfortable just based on a breakout discussion foreclosing work that we've already done in the documents and ruling out clients that don't have JavaScript, use screen readers, etc. 23:13:48 ... fine with priorities, but wouldn't want to foreclose those technologies in the current version without having that full discussion 23:14:24 dwainberg: isn't this just a not-commitment-to-particular-text agreement towards what we'd be doing 23:14:33 23:15:02 agreement that it's not specific restriction to terms, but general priority 23:15:03 finally, I agree with John on something! 23:15:05 title of the document 23:15:18 johnsimpson: title should include "consensus" 23:16:08 I don't mean to be rude, but why are we still talking? 23:16:11 jmayer: agree with Lou on revising title, noting "agreements" rather than "actions", suggest: "consensus conversation summary" 23:16:27 General agreement on work plan? 23:16:35 "Consensus Action Summary", no one too bothered by that 23:17:13 no corrections/objections to the intro? none. 23:17:21 any objections to sending out the document? 23:17:32 johnsimpson: refer to people by full names. 23:17:39 aleecia has joined #dnt 23:17:53 dsinger: destroy bits of paper of the early versions 23:18:36 justin: "sufficient progress" -- is the progress really "sufficient"? 23:18:44 robsherman has joined #dnt 23:18:48 -moneill2 23:18:50 -WaltMichel_Comcast 23:19:04 npd: sufficient just modulo to "merit moving ahead" not a general normative term 23:19:13 peterswire: thanks to David Singer for wonderful hosting 23:19:20  23:19:22 adjourned. 23:19:30 johnsimpson has left #dnt 23:20:28 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 23:20:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 23:20:29 -[Apple] 23:20:30 T&S_Track(dntf2f)11:00AM has ended 23:20:30 Attendees were +49.172.147.aaaa, [Apple], +49.172.147.aabb, dsinger, +49.172.147.aacc, bilcorry, +49.172.147.aadd, moneill2, schunter, Jonathan_Mayer, +33.6.50.34.aaee, vincent, 23:20:30 ... Rich_Schwerdtfeger, +1.917.318.aaff, +1.215.480.aagg, Chapell, WaltMichel_Comcast, Mark_Vickers, Bryan, MikeO 23:20:33 do we have a pointer to the later draft? What did yinz agree upon? 23:21:38 aleecia, to come briefly to mailing list, I believe 23:21:44 Thank you Nick 23:21:45 rrsagent, pointer? 23:21:45 See http://www.w3.org/2013/05/07-dnt-irc#T23-21-45 23:22:17 Do we still claim a July LC? 23:26:04 minutes at http://www.w3.org/2013/05/08-dnt-minutes.html 23:28:16 yay wseltzer 23:30:01 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 23:59:02 AndChat|208329 has joined #dnt 00:00:08 haakonfb has left #dnt 00:01:21 dsinger__ has joined #dnt 00:03:34 dsinger___ has joined #dnt 00:11:22 npd has joined #dnt 00:13:42 npdoty has joined #dnt 00:43:11 robsherman has joined #dnt 00:54:12 fwagner has joined #dnt 01:16:00 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 01:37:39 robsherman has joined #dnt 02:37:29 afowler has joined #dnt 03:39:52 W3C has joined #dnt 03:42:38 W3C1 has joined #dnt 04:40:42 npdoty has joined #dnt 05:18:21 npdoty has joined #dnt 05:34:25 kulick has joined #dnt 05:40:58 fwagner has joined #dnt 05:56:10 kulick_ has joined #dnt 05:57:39 npdoty has joined #dnt 08:05:28 strider has joined #dnt 09:05:50 strider has joined #dnt 10:09:26 strider has joined #dnt 11:09:53 strider has joined #dnt 11:29:53 Zakim has left #dnt 12:10:30 strider has joined #dnt 13:10:51 strider has joined #dnt 13:44:27 W3C has joined #dnt 13:59:39 W3C has left #dnt 14:11:16 strider has joined #dnt 14:19:23 strider has joined #dnt 14:19:35 strider1 has joined #dnt 15:03:03 hober has joined #dnt 15:30:49 kulick has joined #dnt 17:10:34 npdoty has joined #dnt 17:34:32 strider has joined #dnt 18:19:43 npdoty has joined #dnt 18:20:16 strider1 has joined #dnt 18:21:39 strider2 has joined #dnt 19:22:26 npdoty has joined #dnt 19:24:10 kulick has joined #dnt 19:24:21 strider has joined #dnt 19:46:02 kulick has joined #dnt 19:51:05 strider has joined #dnt