Re: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)

Apologies that I missed the last call, but I have a fundamental problem with the text Shane is proposing.  He says:

"The goal of this protocol is to provide balance in both the setting of the DNT signal and possible user granted exceptions to that DNT preference."

I *DO NOT* understand the goal of the protocol to provide any balance.  It should simply be about conveying the user's desire not to be tracked.

As a user, I DO NOT want to enter into any sort if dialog with the server about granting exceptions, I just want to be able say I don't want to be tracked and have that request honored.

Receiving what would essentially be a message saying, "You indicate you don't want to be tracked, do you really, really mean it?" would be an annoyance and hurt the user's experience, I believe.

Best wishes for the holidays,
John

On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org> wrote:

> I guess I don't see how the goal is frustrated if the "combo" of browser and extension/plug-in is still fully able to store/send the UGE signal.  I am assuming you can't use the plug-in/extension without a browser.  
> 
> Maybe this is a bad example but isn't it like a sidecar (that might not be the right name) on a motorcycle, sidecar doesn't need a steering wheel because the motorcycle already has one? 
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> 
>> Lee,
>> 
>> I believe the UGE support would need to extend to the extension/plug-in in this case.  The goal is say you can only send the DNT signal if you're also able to store/send the UGE signal as well.  
>> 
>> As for extension/plug-in balance for setting the DNT signal, we agreed to this with David Singer on issue 153 on/after the call last week so Brad is working with David to provide that edit to the group.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lee Tien [mailto:tien@eff.org] 
>> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 1:10 PM
>> To: Shane M Wiley
>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)
>> 
>> Shane, 
>> 
>> I'm imagining a situation where an extension or plug-in enforces the user's DNT preference in the browser, which itself supports UGE.  The extension/plug-in relies on the browser's UGE facility, but does not support UGE itself.  
>> 
>> Is that in or out under this updated text?
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 23, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Shane M Wiley wrote:
>> 
>>> Per our last WG call, I've updated the proposed language for 151 based on the uncertainty of how Issue-153 will resolve (per Jack's request).
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> (normative)
>>> 
>>> The goal of this protocol is to provide balance in both the setting of the DNT signal and possible user granted exceptions to that DNT preference.  To be compliant with this standard any software that changes user preference requests MUST provide the facility for a Server to record granted exceptions utilizing the services described in this section and alter DNT signals for those Servers appropriately going forward (DNT=0).
>>> ------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nick,
>>> 
>>> While you and I agree that the language as stated already makes it clear that a User Agent must support User Granted Exceptions UGEs to be compliant with the standard.  That said, it appears others felt the current structure of the document could be interpreted differently.  As such, I propose we add a specific statement at the beginning of section 6 making this more clear:
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> (normative)
>>> 
>>> The goal of this protocol is to provide balance in both the setting of the DNT signal and possible user granted exceptions to that DNT preference.  To be compliant with this standard a User Agent MUST provide the facility for a Server to record granted exceptions utilizing the services described in this section and alter DNT signals for those Servers appropriately going forward (DNT=0).
>>> ------
>>> 
>>> - Shane  
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:56 PM
>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>> Subject: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions
>>> 
>>> As discussed on today's teleconference, we'd like to finalize the list of proposals for issue-151, but there was a bit of confusion today about whether the two we had (a. no text; b. mark feature as optional) were sufficient. The chairs have asked for any additional proposals by tomorrow (December 5th), which you can email to the group (this thread is fine) and add to the wiki here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_UA_requirement_to_handle_exceptions
>>> 
>>> I personally had thought we were already very close to consensus on this issue (and only needed two proposals), so apologies if I misread us.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>