16:57:42 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:57:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/07-dnt-irc 16:57:44 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:57:44 Zakim has joined #dnt 16:57:46 Zakim, this will be 16:57:47 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 16:57:47 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 16:57:47 Date: 07 December 2011 16:57:51 Zakim, this will be dnt 16:57:51 npdoty, T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move dnt to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel 16:57:57 Zakim, move dnt to here 16:57:59 ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM 16:58:08 +PederMagee 16:58:12 +efelten 16:58:19 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:58:22 On the phone I see aleecia, npdoty, NinjaMarnau, dsriedel, PederMagee, efelten 16:58:52 efelten_ has joined #dnt 16:58:55 dsriedel has joined #dnt 16:58:59 vincent has joined #dnt 16:59:04 zakim, mute me 16:59:04 dsriedel should now be muted 16:59:15 tedleung has joined #dnt 16:59:22 + +1.813.366.aaaa 16:59:27 +Bjorn,Satish 16:59:35 + +1.646.825.aabb 16:59:44 +[IPcaller] 16:59:49 zakim, aabb is dwainberg 16:59:49 +dwainberg; got it 16:59:55 WileyS has joined #DNT 16:59:59 + +1.415.354.aacc 17:00:08 efelten_ has left #dnt 17:00:24 efelten_ has joined #dnt 17:00:28 Zakim, aaaa is AlexDeliyannis 17:00:28 + +1.206.369.aadd 17:00:28 +AlexDeliyannis; got it 17:00:39 + +1.202.684.aaee 17:00:41 Zakim, aadd is tedleung 17:00:42 +tedleung; got it 17:00:42 PMagee has joined #dnt 17:00:45 Frankie has joined #dnt 17:00:45 +[IPcaller.a] 17:00:47 jmayer has joined #dnt 17:00:51 +1.415.354 is Joanne 17:01:00 Zakim, aacc is Joanne 17:01:01 +Joanne; got it 17:01:07 +WileyS 17:01:11 agenda? 17:01:14 -tedleung 17:01:14 um 17:01:20 justin has joined #dnt 17:01:24 sidstamm has joined #dnt 17:01:46 bryan has joined #dnt 17:01:53 +tedleung 17:01:58 zakim, pick a scribe 17:01:59 +Bryan_Sullivan 17:02:01 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.202.684.aaee 17:02:05 +Justin 17:02:11 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2011Dec/0026.html 17:02:14 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 17:02:16 chair: aleecia 17:02:18 +[Mozilla] 17:02:19 Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm 17:02:21 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:02:34 +sidstamm; got it 17:02:38 +sharvey 17:02:40 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tedleung 17:02:46 + +1.908.541.aaff 17:02:50 +fielding 17:02:58 + +1.650.485.aagg 17:03:01 i'm having trouble hearing 17:03:21 Zakim, aaee is jmayer 17:03:22 I will try today 17:03:31 clay has joined #dnt 17:03:32 -tedleung 17:03:35 scribenick: dsriedel 17:03:41 +jmayer; got it 17:03:45 + +1.202.326.aahh 17:03:45 dsriedel: testing something 17:03:46 http://www.w3.org/2011/11/30-dnt-minutes 17:04:05 +tedleung 17:04:07 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:04:08 hefferjr has joined #dnt 17:04:12 sharvey has joined #dnt 17:04:13 + +1.202.263.aaii 17:04:20 punderwood has joined #dnt 17:04:21 + +1.334.703.aajj 17:04:23 On the phone I see aleecia, npdoty, NinjaMarnau, dsriedel (muted), PederMagee, efelten, AlexDeliyannis, Bjorn,Satish, dwainberg, [IPcaller], Joanne, jmayer, [IPcaller.a], WileyS, 17:04:24 hwest has joined #dnt 17:04:26 ... Bryan_Sullivan, Justin, [Mozilla], sharvey, +1.908.541.aaff, fielding, +1.650.485.aagg, +1.202.326.aahh, tedleung, +1.202.263.aaii, +1.334.703.aajj 17:04:27 fielding has joined #dnt 17:04:30 +1.202.263.aaii is Lia 17:04:31 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 17:04:32 enewland has joined #dnt 17:04:33 +hwest 17:04:33 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/ 17:04:37 + +1.813.366.aakk 17:04:50 Review Action Items 17:05:07 + +1.202.744.aall 17:05:11 Chris has joined #dnt 17:05:24 Zakim, [IPcaller] is vincent 17:05:26 fielding has joined #dnt 17:05:49 action-34? 17:05:49 ACTION-34 -- Jonathan Mayer to draft Near-Consensus First Party vs. Third Party Section with Tom -- due 2011-11-25 -- OPEN 17:05:49 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/34 17:05:53 +vincent; got it 17:06:01 Action Item 10 open 17:06:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - Item 17:06:03 fielding has joined #dnt 17:06:17 What is the status on Action Item 10 17:06:36 dsinger has joined #dnt 17:06:38 s/10/34?/ 17:06:42 +[Apple] 17:06:44 jmayer: draft written, but not ready yet. back to the drawing board, something ready within 1 week 17:06:47 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:06:47 zakim, [apple] has dsinger 17:06:51 JC has joined #DNT 17:06:53 On the phone I see aleecia, npdoty, NinjaMarnau, dsriedel (muted), PederMagee, efelten, AlexDeliyannis, Bjorn,Satish, dwainberg, vincent, Joanne, jmayer, [IPcaller.a], WileyS, 17:06:59 ... Bryan_Sullivan, Justin, [Mozilla], sharvey, +1.908.541.aaff, fielding, +1.650.485.aagg, +1.202.326.aahh, tedleung, +1.202.263.aaii, +1.334.703.aajj, hwest, +1.813.366.aakk, 17:07:03 ... +1.202.744.aall, [Apple] 17:07:06 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 17:07:07 zakim, aajj is enewland 17:07:08 +dsinger; got it 17:07:14 +enewland; got it 17:07:23 +[Microsoft] 17:07:31 -[Microsoft] 17:07:38 aleecia: next action item 38 - ISSUE-19 17:07:40 zakim IPcaller.a is Frankie 17:07:47 +[Microsoft] 17:08:21 aleecia: action 36 review on friday with assignees 17:08:27 I think actions 31 and 36 are overdue 17:08:35 3326 is JC 17:08:54 clay_opa_cbs has joined #dnt 17:08:56 WileyS: On action 31 still in progress 17:09:05 ... progress made, but big issues 17:09:21 Next week 17:09:29

17:09:40 +bryan.a 17:09:45 action-31 due next Wednesday 17:09:45 ACTION-31 Write up a proposal for a user-agent-managed site-specific exception due date now next Wednesday 17:09:56 aleecia: Next item on the agenda: new business 17:10:11 ksmith has joined #DNT 17:10:28 Topic: New business 17:10:47 + +1.347.689.aamm 17:10:49 +q 17:11:09 ack Frankie 17:11:13 aleecia: started to assign issues to people, awaiting feedback on them 17:11:33 + +385221aann 17:11:33 Frankie: First draft on item for end of next week 17:13:05 I'm happy to help with identity language 17:13:15 aleecia: going through the list of items 17:13:17 chuckc has joined #dnt 17:13:22 If it's not a conflict to have an editor draft it 17:14:11 aleecia: hwest jumps in to draft on item about identity language 17:14:26 hwest to draft text on ISSUE-32 17:15:26 Chris_ has joined #dnt 17:17:43 -AlexDeliyannis 17:17:43 Okay 17:17:56 Okay 17:18:00 No problem 17:18:12 ok 17:18:15 +[Microsoft.a] 17:18:42 andyzei has joined #dnt 17:20:01 Amy is out 17:20:13 This week 17:21:46 aleecia: checking with people on the call about their assigned items. makes note to contact people who are not on the call 17:22:15 -tedleung 17:22:16 Jealous of Jonathan! 17:22:50 +tedleung 17:23:09 aleecia: ISSUE-37 to discuss now on the call 17:23:21 issue-37? 17:23:21 ISSUE-37 -- Granularity based on business types and uses -- raised 17:23:21 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/37 17:23:49 aleecia: how does this happen on a practical level? 17:24:44 +q 17:24:47 ... Should it be company by company or on interest based levels, like in current implementations 17:25:50 Too early to rely on ePrivacy Directive 17:25:57 ... New cookie directive implies that a DNT:0 does not say on a global level that the user consents with tracking. - EU countries 17:26:10 ack WileyS 17:26:56 Link to email? 17:27:07 q+ to ask about more requirements/use cases for an opt-back-in 17:27:18 ok 17:27:19 bryan, only among a few of us at the moment 17:28:57 WileyS: difficult to disambiguate policy and technical aspects ... group around-31 discusses some use cases ... 1st-parties should ask for an exception regarding DNT for their 3rd parties ... a site asks for exception for itself and its 3rd-parties ... that is one case to look at 17:29:33 q+ 17:29:59 ... at which time you ask for exceptions ... when the user enters a page ... 17:30:11 ... these are open questions ... 17:30:24 is it assumed that new 3rd parties are only disclosed when the user pulls content from the site, or is there a push notification being considered? 17:30:41 Getting permission for "any third party we might want to give approval to track you across any site" leads to absurd results. 17:30:50 ePrivacy directive in the EU is not yet fully implemented or within national laws, so it might be early to derive conclusions from that... 17:31:05 q? 17:31:11 s/ePrivacy/... ePrivacy/ 17:31:39 WileyS: The EU situation is complex and confused at the moment so it is not clear how much of the working group can take from the directive at the moment 17:31:46 ack npdoty 17:31:46 npdoty, you wanted to ask about more requirements/use cases for an opt-back-in 17:32:42 ack bryan 17:32:44 +q 17:32:44 npdoty: Requirements and use cases regarding opting back in. Are there any other requirements and use cases the group has? 17:33:01 +q 17:33:40 q+ 17:33:41 bryan: what happens when there's a new third party? 17:34:15 ... what happens when data is shared with an additional third party while the user isn't browsing the site any more? 17:34:58 bryan: When is the use informed only when pulling content from the site about the DNT status or also in other ways? For example when a new 3rd-party is acting on the site and the user gave an earlier consent. Is there only a notice on pulling conetnt from the site 17:35:12 WileyS: different options for the user, how he wants to be informed 17:35:18 ... every time he enters 17:35:26 ... maybe in an aggregated form 17:35:40 q+ 17:35:59 aleecia: there might be cases where a consent everytime might be needed, there are others who this might not be necessary. 17:36:06 ack jmayer 17:36:59 jmayer: Use case. User: I like what facebook does on other sites, I trust them. 17:37:06 Agreed - only in context of a 1st party relationship or everywhere 17:37:24 ack JC 17:37:25 ... globally flag a 3rd-party as trusted. 17:37:32 I agree that that use case might be easier 17:37:35 Doesn't the permission to third-party have to be global? Otherwise, they're basically just a service provider, and they're not covered by DNT! 17:37:45 and we might not need it in the protocol 17:38:04 JC: as having a trusted relationship with a 1st-party site, you might also trust them as 3rd-parties 17:38:10 There's no need to get a permission to let Yahoo! track me just on the NYT . . . 17:38:24 q+ 17:38:32 ack ninjamarnau 17:39:03 Job has joined #dnt 17:39:22 jc: better to have the capability to sign up with whole groups of third parties (nai, etc.) 17:39:23 ninjamarnau: user should not allow blindly a group of 3rd-parties tracking. User should have site, party specific excemptions. EU needs granularity. 17:39:31 +q 17:39:41 Just joined IRC. No phone... 17:39:53 q? 17:40:00 ack bryan 17:40:10 ack dsinger 17:40:10 ... example: he can allow facebook social plugin and therefore allows it as 3rd.party plugin on diferent sites. 17:40:15 I think it is debatable whether people are happy with sites they know as 1st parties, being 3rd parties. In specific, many people I know are not happy with the sense that social network buttons on other sites can watch/track their other browsing etc. 17:40:20 +q 17:40:35 I'm only saying people have a choice 17:40:43 ninjamarnau, just to make sure I got your point there, you're saying that a user might opt in to a third party across sites, but only for certain types of resources from that third party 17:40:45 -q 17:40:45 jmayer, sure, but the value of behavioral tracking (which is for the most part what we're talking about) comes from cross-site data. I don't see much of a use case for getting a permission for incrementally better tracking on just one site 17:40:58 dsinger: user might disagree with a 1st-party having a plugin tracking them on other sites being a 3rd-party 17:41:00 Agreed - Internet-wide Exceptions should be consent driven, as well as, site-specific exceptions 17:41:39 Internet-wide vs. site-specific - feels like a fair distinction 17:41:44 I didn't say that Ninja 17:42:01 ninjamarnau: disagree with neglecting the ePrivdacy directive in this WG 17:42:13 is anyone interested in the use case of "you can track me, but only for analytics" or similar? 17:42:23 aleecia: not sure WileyS neglects it, but sees that it is work in progress 17:42:29 + +1.650.862.aaoo 17:42:34 per issue-37 17:42:34 Johnsimpson has joined #dnt 17:42:36 - +1.650.485.aagg 17:42:44 q? 17:42:52 ... so we will have places where we pay attention to it and some where we dont 17:42:53 ack Frankie 17:42:56 jmayer, Definitely, but I think most of that can be done outside of the scope of DNT. 17:42:59 Have joined irc. No telephone, though. 17:43:53 Frankie: Facebook and their plugin is a very simple example. there are scenarios with advertising networks and advertisers behind which draw more complex scenarios. 17:44:19 ... have to consider this and work and more use cases 17:44:31 this is the difference between any consent and informed consent 17:45:03 speaker: another use case - consent for analytics and not trakcing 17:45:12 ndoty, i would be very interested 17:45:15 I would find that useful 17:45:16 q? 17:45:18 +q 17:45:19 q+ 17:45:20 I felt that was the premise of DNT 17:45:21 s/speaker/npdoty/ 17:45:32 ... interest in looking into the option that the user can define what technique he allows and which not 17:45:39 ack jmayer 17:45:44 aleecia: there are ppl who want to consider this 17:45:58 Internet-Wide vs. Site-Specific vs. Use-Specific Exceptions (all driven by user consent) 17:46:08 ack fielding 17:46:14 jmayer: yes, there is use for this in form of allow rules for example 17:46:36 I would prefer to see outsourced analytics and first-party behavioral tracking to be out of scope (as commonly-accepted exceptions to DNT), and the permission to third-parties would allow them to track you across the web. 17:46:51 fielding: once dnt is expressed it is the responsibility of the sites to know how to reply/work with this 17:47:03 Agree with Justin 17:47:06 +1 17:47:06 q? 17:47:25 aleecia: back to ISSUE-37 17:47:37 q+ 17:47:47 Close it! 17:47:48 (+1) Agree with both Justin and Roy 17:47:51 ack vincent 17:47:53 ... no support for the idea on interest categories - or anyone? 17:48:04 vincent: started prototype on this interested based DNT 17:48:22 I thought ninja, lia, JC were supportive of use-based granularity for opt-back-in, when I brought it up earlier 17:48:59 and Microsoft 17:49:10 aleecia: business type == interest groups 17:49:24 ndoty, no not use based - more based on a specific third party 17:49:54 aleecia: should we have the google, yahoo interest group style for DNT? 17:49:55 Lia, can you explain your interest in this granularity? 17:49:56 I do :) 17:50:17 JC, can you give more detail on Microsoft's interest in this type of granularity? 17:50:44 We provide an interest manager similar to Yahoo & Google 17:51:00 Not that we are intersted in this type of DNT approach 17:51:14 I was referring to granularity for specific uses of tracking like analytics 17:51:17 WileyS: we have 3 levels of exception. Internet-wide, site specific and use specific exceptions. Down the use specific path it could include the interest based approach. User could give a list of interests to allow tracking for. 17:51:24 I don't think that would work 17:52:02 q+ 17:52:26 aleecia: the granularity regarding an interest area for the user for a 3rd-party on a 1st-party site could be tricky and not very useful 17:52:47 Agree with Google 17:52:50 jmayer, were you assuming that exceptions would be blanket allow rules? or prefer that the exceptions would be for specific collections/uses? 17:52:58 q- 17:53:03 One reason using existing web tech has some promise for opt-in consent: can create arbitrary types of opt-in. 17:53:03 speaker: the standard should not include any granularity like interest based filters 17:53:12 s/speaker/sharvey/ 17:53:12 I meant that, once DNT is expressed, the myriad details of how 1st and 3rd parties are implemented are not really our concern -- we should express the requirements in terms of when and what data can be collected and shared given the presence of DNT since that subject is less site-unique than implementation. 17:53:19 q+ 17:53:28 ack vincent 17:53:46 aleecia: We close the discussion on ISSUE-37 for now and make a note about that it is category based/user interests 17:53:48 going to close issue-37 as no, we won't do interest-based categories 17:54:24 npdoty, I don't think there should be any blanket allow rules. Every exception should be for specific collection/retention/use. 17:54:49 npdoty, It's not a great approach, but privacy policies are a starting point. 17:54:52 issue-37? 17:54:52 ISSUE-37 -- Granularity based on business types and uses -- raised 17:54:52 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/37 17:54:59 vincent: have more look on this issue-37 and use cases 17:55:10 aleecia: issue-37 closed for now 17:55:14 issue-57? 17:55:14 ISSUE-57 -- What if an opt-out cookie exists but an "opt back in" out-of-band is present? -- raised 17:55:14 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/57 17:55:38 +q 17:55:47 +q 17:56:02 -q 17:56:07 aleecia: ISSUE-57. Conflict between opt-out cookie and an excemption for the same company 17:56:13 - +1.202.263.aaii 17:56:13 ack WileyS 17:56:54 q+ 17:57:05 +q 17:57:12 ack dsinger 17:57:23 WileyS: Idea. Remove the opt-out cookie when there is a DNT:0, but when there is DNT:1 or now info, respect the cookie. 17:58:02 q+ 17:58:08 dsinger: the more granular decision is the one that controls 17:58:17 ack jmayer 17:58:52 We should document these use cases 17:59:20 I'd like use cases and examples in the spec 17:59:29 +1 to jmayer 17:59:33 jmayer: we have to look in the sequences when users opt- in or -out and when they do so and in which order, there might be ambiguity 17:59:41 ack npdoty 17:59:44 punderwood has joined #dnt 17:59:49 q+ 18:00:11 Have to drop early - sorry! 18:00:13 -PederMagee 18:00:20 thanks, Heather 18:00:23 -hwest 18:00:45 s/ambiguity/ambiguity; would propose instead a principle of taking the min of all choice mechanisms/ 18:00:54 ack fielding 18:01:25 min would mean no override for DNT:1 18:01:44 most recent is tempting but crazy to figure out unless we want to timestamp DNT 18:01:49 ileana has joined #dnt 18:01:50 fielding: cookie based mechanisms to opt-back-in should be respected, another area of conflict 18:02:15 q? 18:02:15 +q 18:02:22 ack jmayer 18:02:32 -dwainberg 18:02:58 punderwood has left #dnt 18:03:01 jmayer: agree if there are opt-in signals in the mix, regarding cookie based op-in and -outs, especially regarding browsers who (still) do not support DNT 18:03:10 +q 18:03:26 ack sidstamm 18:04:06 User-Agent + Cookie State 18:04:15 Interesting new dimension to consider 18:04:29 sidstamm: if the browser does not have a possibility to give more granularity than telling the whole internet: do not track, a cookie based opt-in and -out should be respected for the sake of granularity 18:05:01 karl has joined #dnt 18:05:02 :-) 18:05:15 speaker: asking for more use cases 18:05:25 s/speaker/sharvey/ 18:06:00 s/support DNT/support DNT; would propose starting with a min rule and then carving out exceptions as necessary; we just need to agree to a clear order of precedence/ 18:06:21 aleecia: we will get more cases or details on this as ppl are writing up on this issue in the next weeks 18:06:42 -sharvey 18:06:59 aleecia: ISSUE-27. Anyone wants to add something to this? 18:06:59 apologies to all, as usuall I have to drop off early 18:07:07 -[Mozilla] 18:07:09 Meeting schedule through the holidays? 18:07:27 I'm out the last 2 weeks of the year - hence my question. 18:07:30 Any updates on f2f in Belgium? 18:07:40 I'm out as well 18:07:49 me too 18:07:54 aleecia: not talked about this too much yet. 14th of december another call. how about 21st? 18:07:56 My vote is no on 21st and 28th. 18:08:03 Ditto 18:08:16 I can do 21st and 28th. 18:08:23 yes for 21st no for 28th 18:08:24 aleecia: 28th not clear who will chair it yet 18:08:31 +1 18:08:31 can you make the 21st? 18:08:31 ok 18:08:33 +1 18:08:33 +1 18:08:33 no preferences on this - already in the office :-( 18:08:34 I can make the 21st 18:08:34 +1 18:08:35 +q 18:08:36 +1 18:08:37 ok 21st 18:08:37 -q 18:08:37 andyzei_ has joined #dnt 18:08:38 + 18:08:38 maybe 18:08:43 yes 18:08:51 +1 18:08:51 +1 18:08:52 -1 18:08:52 -1 18:08:53 -1 18:08:54 +1 18:08:55