IRC log of dnt on 2012-06-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:00:27 [rigo]
hwest: misperception: is not about individual profile about a person, but only aggregate result
00:00:42 [rigo]
alex: brought up segregation of data bases
00:01:45 [npdoty]
alex: is there agreement or disagreement about segregation of data?
00:01:59 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
00:02:09 [wheeler]
however, 1st party sites like http://health.yahoo.net will be able to target across their network - so that issue doesn't go away
00:02:28 [rigo]
aleecia: we don't keep separate databases, privacy advocates said ok, unless there is scope creep. Aggregation is a feeling of scope creep
00:02:52 [bilcorry]
bilcorry has joined #dnt
00:03:19 [hwest]
I think we need to reframe this from "use the security data for X" to "use the data collected for the permitted use of A, B, C, and security"
00:03:26 [bryan]
q+
00:03:35 [hwest]
With appropriate technical controls and mechanisms
00:03:42 [fielding]
q+
00:04:26 [rigo]
... want to understand who can not live with the aggregation out of security data for the lifetime of the security data?
00:04:37 [rigo]
-> clarifications
00:04:40 [jmayer]
+q
00:04:47 [fielding]
ack bryan
00:05:10 [rigo]
ack fielding
00:05:15 [bryan]
q-
00:05:31 [rigo]
fielding: part of aggregate is that you know what you have
00:06:13 [rigo]
rvaneijk: one of the deep packet inspection is that you can do that on life traffic and put things in buckets
00:06:45 [jmayer]
q-
00:07:15 [rigo]
cultural split: mostly european hands up (around 6)
00:07:17 [jmayer]
+q
00:09:26 [efelten]
efelten has left #dnt
00:09:33 [rigo]
jmayer: this is related to the scope creep, no need to remove data, suddenly more collection and more retention
00:09:51 [felten]
felten has joined #dnt
00:09:51 [npdoty]
jmayer: a probable of perverse incentives, you will have much less of a reason to collect less data for security as it's an input to market research
00:10:01 [rigo]
aleecia: business saying, we have data, why shouldn't we use it for aggregation?
00:10:31 [npdoty]
s/a probable/a problem/
00:10:37 [erikn]
ack jmayer
00:10:38 [jmayer]
My argument: allowing aggregate analysis creates perverse incentives for additional collection and retention. We have enough problems as is checking for "reasonable" collection and retention.
00:11:05 [jmayer]
Another problem: concerned there's a slippery slope to weaker protections on this data once more ordinary business purposes are allowed.
00:11:26 [npdoty]
q+
00:11:31 [npdoty]
q+ WileyS
00:11:55 [bryan]
q+
00:12:52 [bryan]
q-
00:12:57 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
00:13:00 [rigo]
Sean: not saying toys are there, let's play.. For purposes of aggregation that is unlinkable
00:13:19 [jmayer]
+q
00:13:24 [justin]
Rigo, they haven't promised anything yet. I imagine Google's privacy policy would say "We keep data for security for 1 years and finacial reporting for 4 years. For data we keep for these two purposes, we also reserve the right to use this data for aggregate reporting purposes."
00:13:48 [jmayer]
I disagree that unlinkable data is out of scope. I don't believe we've agreed to that.
00:14:00 [jmayer]
And, at any rate, the process of making data unlinkable is plainly within scope.
00:14:44 [justin]
q?
00:15:27 [rigo]
aleecia: who can't live with the fact that we cannot use security for aggregation?
00:15:31 [WileyS]
+q
00:15:33 [rigo]
-> clarifications
00:15:58 [jmayer]
To be clear, this discussion of seven-year retention of all sorts of data is a thought experiment. We assuredly do not have consensus that it's allowed.
00:16:04 [hwest]
Are we really saying that you cannot take identifiable data and making it unidentifiable? That just doesn't make sense to me.
00:16:34 [justin]
jmayer, yes, we have not agreed that the data is going to be lying around for seven years always for financial reporting . . .
00:16:50 [jmayer]
justin, "always" -> "ever"
00:17:12 [justin]
jmayer, I would be happy to get there.
00:17:58 [ifette]
q+
00:18:03 [meme]
q+
00:19:28 [bryan]
q+
00:19:36 [WileyS]
jmayer - agree the process of unlinkability is within scope but once there it is out of scope. Thought we had agreement on that perspective (dependant on the definition of course)
00:19:47 [jeffwilson]
q
00:20:03 [felten]
q+ jeffwilson
00:20:26 [rigo]
ack npdoty
00:20:33 [jmayer]
There's agreement that once data is unlinkable, the limits on it are almost entirely relaxed. That's not out of scope, of course. And there's still some disagreement on the definition of "unlinkable."
00:20:47 [rigo]
npdoty: should think about alternatives
00:21:37 [rigo]
... why I think there is trouble. some believe that we should not collect data others said you just have to be transparent about it and collect
00:21:52 [rigo]
... what we need to talk about is the alternative
00:22:26 [justin]
ack jmayer
00:22:27 [rigo]
ack jmayer
00:22:30 [justin]
ack WileyS
00:22:33 [jmayer]
q- later
00:22:52 [jmayer]
hwest, Yes, really, for at least three reasons: 1) legal compliance, 2) perverse incentives, and 3) a slippery scope on siloing.
00:22:55 [Chapell]
q?
00:22:56 [justin]
Q+
00:22:59 [hwest]
q+
00:23:04 [Chapell]
q+ adrianba
00:23:10 [susanisrael]
+q
00:23:40 [susanisrael]
would you really have communicated to the user that you are keeping the data only for security purposes
00:24:06 [rigo]
Aleecia: strong opposition against data re-use with purpose transgression
00:24:14 [susanisrael]
-q
00:24:17 [robsherman]
+q
00:24:40 [egrant]
egrant has joined #dnt
00:24:52 [jmayer]
The group agrees: companies MUST NOT violate the FTC Act. Progress!
00:25:13 [Chapell]
JM - ok, that was pretty funny (:
00:25:19 [rigo]
dwainberg: you keep your promises. but people erase their data by agregating them
00:25:31 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
00:26:38 [npdoty]
ack ifette
00:26:47 [hwest]
q-
00:26:59 [rigo]
ifette: aggregate data has separate promises. Minimum period of aggregation. Wanted to circumvent that problem of maximum period for aggregation
00:27:04 [rigo]
ack meme
00:28:00 [npdoty]
ifette: we could instead have the debate over how long you can keep data for aggregate reporting/market research purposes, not sure we want to have that separate debate which might be just as tricky
00:28:17 [rigo]
meme: if we want to come out on which devices were there 7 years ago.
00:28:22 [fwagner]
q+
00:28:25 [npdoty]
ack bryan
00:28:32 [rigo]
... too much angst on what we try to aggregate
00:28:55 [rigo]
bryan: if access to security team, only those
00:29:04 [npdoty]
q- jeffwilson
00:29:04 [rigo]
ack jeffwilson
00:29:10 [rigo]
acj jmayer
00:29:14 [npdoty]
ack jmayer
00:29:20 [bryan]
q-
00:29:32 [rigo]
ack justin
00:29:33 [npdoty]
ack justin
00:29:35 [justin]
q-
00:29:48 [rigo]
ack adrianba
00:30:48 [rigo]
adrianba, agree with ifette, am I right that people will keep raw data for some period of time, should there be a specified period of time
00:31:20 [erikn]
+q
00:31:37 [WileyS]
q?
00:31:37 [rigo]
... if we have to keep for some period of time. Why not keep that data for that aggregation
00:32:01 [rigo]
ifette: you get x years for these uses and y for aggregate
00:32:26 [erikn]
-q
00:32:27 [npdoty]
ack robsherman
00:32:32 [rigo]
ack fwagner
00:32:37 [npdoty]
ack fwagner
00:33:00 [justin]
q+
00:33:09 [npdoty]
adrianba: just collect data for a different period of time for aggregate reporting, and debate and justify that amount of time the same way that we do for all other permitted uses
00:33:40 [rigo]
if we collect data for a certain period for a defined purpose, at the end you aggregate. You can use that aggregate data.
00:34:12 [fielding]
q+
00:34:23 [ifette]
Frank, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I think what I just heard is that you can keep security data for 7 years. At the end of 7 years, I can dump it, or only keep it in an unlinkable form. That sounds like "At the end of 7 years you're allowed to aggregate the data." But I couldn't aggregate it at year 6?
00:35:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, queue =
00:35:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'queue =', npdoty
00:35:17 [npdoty]
Zakim, clear queue
00:35:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'clear queue', npdoty
00:35:29 [npdoty]
q- justin
00:35:32 [npdoty]
q- fielding
00:36:03 [rigo]
Aleecia: consensus of the group: It is ok to have one copy of the data
00:36:06 [npdoty]
I am hearing that it is okay to have one copy of the data, not multiple copies for different permitted uses
00:36:15 [npdoty]
can have access controls for siloing data
00:36:16 [rigo]
... it is ok ot have controls on that like Access control
00:36:29 [randomwalker]
randomwalker has joined #dnt
00:36:46 [rigo]
... it is not ok to have 4 permitted uses and use the data for aggregation for the longest retention time
00:36:47 [npdoty]
it is not okay to have aggregate reporting automatically/iimplicitly being the maximum of data timeframes for other permitted uses
00:36:52 [justin]
Rigo, if the privacy policy says "We keep data for security for 1 years and finacial reporting for 4 years. For data we keep for these two purposes, we also reserve the right to use this data for aggregate reporting purposes." does that address your concerns?
00:37:38 [rigo]
justin: In fact you say: We keep data for 4 years and make analysis
00:38:12 [justin]
rigo, Fine, but that would be OK with you?
00:39:21 [fielding]
I clarified that the restrictions only apply to those records marked as DNT:1, meaning that aggregate reports can be created if they are only sourcing the non-DNT records.
00:39:47 [rigo]
Aleecia: time period discussion for aggregation
00:40:16 [rigo]
.... take the approaches of the groups and integrate into the document and then have a discussion on the wording
00:41:09 [rigo]
no new items except for really new facts
00:41:13 [jmayer]
Is the consensus accurately captured?
00:42:02 [jmayer]
Want to make sure this is down: we agree that siloing will not require more than one copy of data. ACLs can be sufficient.
00:42:16 [rigo]
ifette: once the time is up (one copy) you cannot keep that data in linkable form. After that time period must be unlinkable and we need to define that unlinkability
00:42:27 [jmayer]
+q
00:42:31 [rigo]
tlr: erase identifier from data base?
00:42:46 [rigo]
ifette: or other measures
00:43:19 [rigo]
jmayer: notion to get rid of data may be different from making unlinkable because of the incentives that it creates
00:43:43 [rigo]
aleecia: what would mean 'get rid off" for you?
00:43:45 [npdoty]
ack jmayer
00:43:58 [rigo]
jmayer: do not have a copy of that anymore
00:44:13 [jmayer]
Proposal: be reasonably certain you don't have a copy of the data.
00:44:31 [rigo]
WileyS: aggregation is one way to get there?
00:44:41 [jmayer]
What Ian and Shane propose bleeds disposal into unlinkability and re-use—which the group clearly doesn't have agreement on.
00:44:45 [rigo]
q?
00:44:50 [ifette]
q+
00:45:10 [rigo]
tlr: trying to understand whether there is a difference between postion.
00:46:04 [rigo]
... throw away all identifiers, could jmayer agree there? Or even throughing even the unidentifiable data away?
00:46:16 [ifette]
Proposal: "Once the time period for retention for all permitted uses has passed, you may only retain a subset of the data, or a transformation of the data, that meets the group's definition of 'unlinkable data'.
00:47:12 [jmayer]
+q
00:49:02 [ifette]
I.e. as part of dumping my security data, I can create an aggregate "last 7 years of security data" but not a "here's the growth of tablets over the last 7 years" report
00:49:07 [rigo]
ack ifette
00:49:10 [npdoty]
'That unlinkable data must only be used for the permitted use for which it was retained.'
00:49:43 [ifette]
and by last 7 years of security data I mean "last 7 years of security threats etc"
00:50:04 [dwainberg]
... Unless you had previously disclosed that you would be aggregating for other uses at 7 years. Right?
00:50:27 [vinay]
Question -- what if the stated retention period for aggregate reporting is for 7 years?
00:50:46 [rigo]
q?
00:51:32 [WileyS]
+q
00:51:39 [rigo]
ack jmayer
00:51:43 [WileyS]
-q
00:53:49 [rvaneijk]
q+
00:53:57 [rigo]
ack rvaneijk
00:54:09 [rvaneijk]
q-
00:54:23 [rigo]
Aleecia: Victory!
00:54:44 [jmayer]
My understanding: We haven't agreed what you can collect. We haven't agreed how long you can retain it. We haven't agreed how you can use it. But if there's something you're allowed to collect/retain/use for some particular purpose, at the end of the allowed retention period, you can make an unlinkable dataset for the particular purpose.
00:55:14 [rvaneijk]
we havn't agreed that aggregate reporting is an excepted use
00:55:59 [npdoty]
aleecia: feeling much better after today than yesterday
00:56:06 [npdoty]
... thank you for staying engaged, this is a lot of work
00:56:19 [justin]
rvaneijk, agreed. I was arguing for treating it as a quasi-excepted use, but I hear that that has not been approved by the group.
00:56:20 [npdoty]
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood & Steaks
00:56:20 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has left #dnt
00:56:40 [rigo]
Resolution: Aggregation can be done for the purpose within the period of retention for that purpose
00:57:08 [rigo]
In the lincoln building: McCormick & Smith
00:57:11 [rvaneijk]
rigo: NO, need discussion on that
01:32:43 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
02:17:20 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
03:06:23 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
03:39:01 [asoltani]
03:48:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
04:28:22 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
05:18:23 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
05:18:58 [dwainber_]
dwainber_ has joined #dnt
05:29:12 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
05:45:58 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
05:51:16 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
06:04:57 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
06:09:56 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
06:39:49 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
06:45:23 [fielding_]
fielding_ has joined #dnt
07:07:25 [fielding_]
fielding_ has joined #dnt
07:13:58 [fielding_]
fielding_ has joined #dnt
07:16:20 [fielding__]
fielding__ has joined #dnt
07:37:08 [fielding__]
fielding__ has joined #dnt
07:47:33 [fielding_]
fielding_ has joined #dnt
08:51:07 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
10:18:36 [mischat_]
mischat_ has joined #dnt
11:15:44 [felten]
felten has joined #dnt
12:05:38 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
12:18:33 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
12:22:57 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
12:56:31 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
13:04:20 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
13:05:35 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
13:05:44 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
13:28:46 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
13:51:34 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
13:54:56 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
13:59:53 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
14:28:45 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
14:40:35 [alev]
alev has joined #dnt
14:54:27 [CraigSpiezle]
CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
14:55:38 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
15:19:19 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:23:20 [felten]
felten has joined #dnt
15:23:33 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
15:23:43 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
15:23:45 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
15:37:27 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:43:33 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
15:44:58 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:54:20 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
15:54:28 [Ionel]
Ionel has joined #dnt
15:54:40 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
15:58:05 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:59:39 [James]
James has joined #dnt
16:01:05 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
16:01:31 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:02:36 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
16:02:43 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
16:03:11 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:03:22 [npdoty]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:03:22 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T16-03-22
16:03:29 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:03:36 [npdoty]
schunter: today the topic will change, a lot
16:03:43 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
16:03:47 [npdoty]
... look at protocol messages between the browser and the server
16:03:56 [npdoty]
... TPE doc, edited by fielding and dsinger
16:04:07 [npdoty]
... since everyone has read and memorized the spec, we can jump right into it ;)
16:04:09 [aleecia]
aleecia has joined #dnt
16:04:23 [felten]
felten has joined #dnt
16:04:32 [bryan]
present+ Bryan_Sullivan
16:04:39 [npdoty]
... quick intro / tutorial, clarifying questions only please
16:04:50 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:05:21 [npdoty]
... look at the spec, unresolved issues, and a few areas to discuss (user-granted exception, server responses, non-compliant UAs)
16:05:47 [aleecia]
(Nick, thank you. We'll make sure we get scribes for the rest of the day)
16:06:07 [npdoty]
Topic: TPE Overview
16:06:19 [npdoty]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
16:06:22 [suegl]
suegl has joined #dnt
16:06:30 [npdoty]
What is the Tracking Preference Expression about?
16:06:31 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:06:54 [npdoty]
1. Communicating a user preference (request headers) -- largely stable
16:06:57 [aleecia]
q?
16:07:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
16:07:05 [npdoty]
q?
16:07:26 [npdoty]
2. Communicating a tracking status (response header and URI) -- stable idea, details have been drafted
16:07:43 [npdoty]
3. User-Granted Exceptions (JS API + out-of-band mechanisms)
16:08:27 [npdoty]
schunter: at this point, we still agree -- today a day of agreement
16:09:04 [npdoty]
... unset by default (no headers sent at all), as an initial state
16:09:31 [npdoty]
... user can switch DNT to 1 or 0, on or off
16:09:57 [npdoty]
... changing the state represents the preference of the user
16:10:12 [npdoty]
... interacted with the user and confident of their preference, can change the state and reflect it in the headers
16:10:16 [RobGratchner]
RobGratchner has joined #dnt
16:10:29 [npdoty]
... a general purpose tool shouldn't be shipped with a fixed [?] preference
16:10:52 [npdoty]
... for a site, it's important that when a site receives the signal, it's an expression of the user rather than an intermediary
16:11:11 [npdoty]
... at the user's discretion, can change between these three states?
16:11:19 [egrant]
egrant has joined #dnt
16:11:46 [npdoty]
craig: you said "general purpose tool", can you clarify distinction from a privacy-specific tool?
16:11:53 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:11:57 [bryan]
q+
16:12:05 [justin_]
justin_ has joined #dnt
16:12:08 [aleecia]
q?
16:12:24 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:12:38 [npdoty]
schunter: we don't say how the user preference is collected. but for a tool that just turns on Do Not Track, just installing it can turn on DNT:1
16:13:05 [rigo]
q?
16:13:06 [npdoty]
... some gray areas, like an anti-virus tool, is that primarily a privacy tool? I would say no
16:13:08 [rigo]
q+
16:13:10 [aleecia]
ack bryan
16:13:10 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:13:37 [aleecia]
ack rigo
16:13:38 [npdoty]
aleecia: exact language here may change in the Compliance spec, but schunter has captured the idea
16:13:49 [npdoty]
byran: the user also has the option to switch back to unset, right? -- yes.
16:14:11 [CraigSpiezle]
CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
16:14:12 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:14:22 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:14:23 [npdoty]
rigo: rather than "on" and "off" (DNT:0 being explicit means something other than just "off")
16:14:25 [aleecia]
Suggest Roy/David change from "on" "off" in the spec to "1 is set" or "0 is set"
16:14:28 [vinay]
q+ roy
16:14:33 [npdoty]
felten: just call them "1" and "0"
16:14:45 [aleecia]
Suggest Heather/Justin/Sean do a pass through as well
16:14:58 [npdoty]
schunter: I agree, shouldn't just use "off"
16:15:29 [npdoty]
schunter: we consider all the inputs and then make a decision
16:15:38 [aleecia]
We will write nice letters to reply to the comments
16:15:44 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:15:44 [npdoty]
... these inputs are very valuable (including letters from governmental actors) but may or may not change the spec
16:15:45 [aleecia]
And thank them for their interest
16:15:47 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:16:06 [fielding]
action item on fielding to change text around DNT on/off
16:16:06 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - item
16:16:15 [npdoty]
schunter: the compromise was, rather than 1 or 0, to ship with no setting by default
16:16:30 [fielding]
action on fielding to change text around DNT on/off
16:16:30 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
16:16:32 [npdoty]
action: fielding to change text around DNT "on"/"off"/
16:16:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-217 - Change text around DNT "on"/"off"/ [on Roy Fielding - due 2012-06-29].
16:16:33 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:16:42 [aleecia]
Open issue on language there in compliance spec
16:16:50 [aleecia]
We'll work it through.
16:17:02 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB: depends what you mean by "confident" when determining the user's preference with confidence
16:17:11 [BerinSzoka]
BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
16:17:14 [aleecia]
That had been on the agenda for Tuesday, but we didn't get through half the things I hoped to take on.
16:17:24 [aleecia]
q?
16:17:25 [npdoty]
schunter: has to be an expression of preference by a user, rather than a tool provider
16:17:38 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB: in that case, need to define "explicit"
16:17:46 [CraigSpiezle]
user interation, but also respect an orgnization (company, govt agency) who may set it 1 or 2 by default
16:17:49 [fielding]
q-
16:17:51 [CraigSpiezle]
q
16:17:53 [npdoty]
q- roy
16:18:02 [erikn]
erikn has joined #dnt
16:18:24 [meme]
meme has joined #dnt
16:18:26 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:18:28 [jmayer]
+q
16:18:38 [npdoty]
jchester: you're not suggesting that the spec would punish a browser vendor that wanted to develop a tool with privacy-by-design
16:18:40 [CraigSpiezle]
q+
16:18:45 [jmayer]
-q
16:18:46 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:19:01 [npdoty]
ack CraigSpiezle
16:19:05 [johnsimpson]
q?
16:19:08 [Marc]
Marc has joined #dnt
16:19:21 [npdoty]
CraigSpiezle: there are situations where companies or government agencies might configure settings for their employees
16:19:42 [npdoty]
tl: should read into the spec on that
16:19:46 [rigo]
q?
16:20:21 [npdoty]
<returning to the overview>
16:20:33 [npdoty]
schunter: site responses
16:21:04 [npdoty]
... to what extent and how does it honor DNT:1, or it can request an exception
16:21:14 [npdoty]
... double arrow because it might be some kind of negotiation, multiple messages
16:21:21 [npdoty]
... some other information, we'll look at the fields later in more detail
16:21:24 [vinay_]
vinay_ has joined #dnt
16:21:52 [npdoty]
amyc: interaction between response header and well-known URI -- we'll discuss later.
16:22:25 [aleecia]
For new(er) folks, the spec we are discussing right now is fairly well baked. I strongly suggest reading it. If things don't make sense to you, please speak up: it needs to be readable by many types of people.
16:22:39 [npdoty]
schunter: a site might also want to ask for an exception
16:22:50 [npdoty]
... have a JavaScript API including:
16:23:00 [npdoty]
... Web-wide, like a social networking widget
16:23:20 [npdoty]
... site-wide, all resources on this site should have an exception
16:23:42 [npdoty]
... explicit, site can specify which domains to request an exception
16:24:10 [npdoty]
... some discussion on the "explicit" piece, concern that with hundreds of parties it wouldn't be meaningful to a user
16:24:23 [aleecia]
If you are an observer, haven't had time to read the spec, and have a question, you might find it productive to put it in IRC. Someone can answer you here without derailing the rest of the discussion -- or tell you we do not yet have an answer and we should discuss more
16:24:30 [aleecia]
q?
16:24:34 [tl]
+q
16:24:52 [npdoty]
@@: we're not envisioning that a third-party can call the API itself, are we?
16:25:14 [npdoty]
schunter: any resource could make this request as is.
16:25:29 [Chapell]
q+
16:25:30 [aleecia]
q?
16:25:35 [npdoty]
@@: I have a problem with that, our members don't want lots of pop-ups to appear on their site
16:27:09 [npdoty]
ack tl
16:27:15 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
16:27:28 [npdoty]
tl: can do it, but it wouldn't be a good idea
16:27:32 [vincent]
s/@@/ChrisPedigo/
16:27:47 [npdoty]
Chapell: third party companies would just be shut down, publishers would stop it within an hour, or certainly that day
16:27:59 [aleecia]
q?
16:28:05 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
16:28:52 [npdoty]
npd: I thought we had an agreement that we would prohibit 3rd-parties calling the API, even though they could via JS
16:29:08 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:29:13 [npdoty]
schunter: volunteers to scribe, to replace nick?
16:29:21 [aleecia]
thank you, Alan
16:29:22 [rigo]
zakim, pick a victim?
16:29:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, rigo.
16:29:27 [npdoty]
scribenick: Chapell
16:29:29 [rigo]
zakim, pick a victim
16:29:29 [Zakim]
sorry, rigo, I don't know what conference this is
16:29:35 [aleecia]
zakim, this is dnt
16:29:35 [Zakim]
sorry, aleecia, I do not see a conference named 'dnt' in progress or scheduled at this time
16:29:47 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
16:29:57 [aleecia]
zakim doesn't know us
16:29:59 [npdoty]
"I'm a rarity in this group that I only speak when I have something to say" —unattributed
16:30:04 [wheeler]
wheeler has joined #dnt
16:30:32 [aleecia]
Nick, how do we tell Zakim we are dnt?
16:30:34 [Chapell]
placing diagrams into the spec can be helpful
16:30:46 [aleecia]
and that Alan is scribing?
16:30:46 [Chapell]
looking for input from group(?)
16:30:55 [npdoty]
scribenick: Chapell
16:31:08 [Chapell]
issue 112 - site specific exceptions
16:31:12 [npdoty]
issue-112?
16:31:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-112 -- How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions? -- open
16:31:12 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
16:31:26 [Chapell]
need volunteers for proposals
16:32:01 [Chapell]
nick volunteers for issue 112 proposal
16:32:18 [tl]
+q
16:32:22 [ifette]
q+
16:32:36 [jmayer]
+q
16:32:40 [Chapell]
roy: right now sub-domains are not included in the exception. and they should be included (if we have exceptions at all)
16:32:43 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:33:02 [aleecia]
ack ifette
16:33:18 [Chapell]
Ian: we all have other subdomains mail.google.com
16:33:43 [Chapell]
IAn: ICANN complicates things --
16:33:49 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:33:59 [Chapell]
Ian: full origin domains
16:34:15 [ifette]
s/full origin domains/fully qualified domain names/
16:34:20 [fwagner]
q?
16:34:24 [npdoty]
ifette: I prefer we use origin (that is scheme, host, port)
16:34:42 [hober]
hober: alternative to using origin is to reply on the public suffix list ( http://publicsuffix.org )
16:34:45 [CraigSpiezle]
concern on abuse on 3P exceptiions and how it could be both abused and create conflict with publishers. Perhaps the spec state that 3P Must not not ask for exceptions, without the approval of the 1P site.
16:35:03 [Chapell]
TLR: concern about over engineering this piece
16:35:09 [aleecia]
q?
16:35:15 [adrianba]
q+
16:35:16 [npdoty]
tlr: safest and simplest granularity is do this by origin
16:35:23 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:35:29 [Chapell]
TLR: keep it simple, stick to concepts that work elsewhere and stick with origns
16:35:52 [aleecia]
ack adrianba
16:36:01 [npdoty]
lots of people like origins?
16:36:02 [Chapell]
Adrianba: Agrees with Ian and TL: start simple and enhance as needed in the future
16:36:03 [hober]
s/reply/rely/
16:36:24 [Chapell]
Nick will create proposal around origins
16:36:35 [aleecia]
issue-116?
16:36:35 [trackbot]
ISSUE-116 -- How can we build a JS DOM property which doesn't allow inline JS to receive mixed signals? -- pending review
16:36:35 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/116
16:36:38 [npdoty]
action: doty to write up proposal on issue-112 that we do exceptions based on origin
16:36:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-218 - Write up proposal on issue-112 that we do exceptions based on origin [on Nick Doty - due 2012-06-29].
16:37:06 [aleecia]
q?
16:37:12 [npdoty]
issue-116, action-180, my proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0313.html
16:37:15 [jmayer]
My suggestion was the cookie approach that allows for optionally including subdomains (e.g. google.com vs. .google.com).
16:37:45 [fielding]
I am not aware of any outstanding text to be added -- perhaps David Singer is handling he JS API text
16:38:05 [fielding]
s/ he / the /
16:38:38 [npdoty]
q?
16:38:57 [tl]
+q
16:39:11 [Chapell]
Brooks: re: 144 hard to discuss what a user agent should do unless we define what a User agent is
16:39:11 [WileyS]
+q
16:39:32 [WileyS]
143 is missing - we decided it should be placed on the list
16:39:34 [hober]
ack tl
16:39:37 [npdoty]
Brooks, is there anything particular in issue-144 that would behave differently for a different definition of UA?
16:40:04 [Chapell]
LT: User agent was defined on day 2 - if we want to revisit, we should (but only if the current definition is breaking things)
16:40:11 [hober]
Our current definition of UA is http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#terminology
16:40:30 [rigo]
q?
16:40:39 [Chapell]
Aleecia: there are many things that are not UA that do change settings - which may impact the definition and rule set
16:40:55 [felten]
Doesn't that definition come directly from the HTTP standard?
16:41:06 [aleecia]
Yes, yes it does
16:41:13 [aleecia]
q?
16:41:26 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
16:41:28 [npdoty]
q+ fielding
16:42:01 [Chapell]
Shane: Missing Issue 143 -- we had agreed to adress in TPE (re: whomever sets DNT 1 flag identifies in the header request)
16:42:19 [rigo]
q+
16:42:26 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt
16:42:28 [hober]
ISSUE-143?
16:42:28 [trackbot]
ISSUE-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- raised
16:42:28 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143
16:42:33 [aleecia]
ack fielding
16:42:56 [Chapell]
Roy: current definition might be insufficient -- its not a UA issue, its an add on issue (issue 143)
16:43:06 [aleecia]
q?
16:43:12 [aleecia]
ack rigo
16:43:24 [Brooks]
avg is not a plugin and can't be a UA
16:43:31 [aleecia]
this is the issue I want to discuss before 143
16:43:41 [dwainberg]
q+
16:43:43 [aleecia]
I think it will simplify a few things to talk about that first
16:43:54 [felten]
Brooks, why do you say AVG does not use an add-on?
16:44:01 [Chapell]
Rigo: if we want DNT to be a US tool as well as a worldwide tool, it must be able to handle exceptions as a consent mechanism
16:44:31 [npdoty]
fielding, do we have a separate issue around extensions/add-ons?
16:44:53 [fielding]
npdoty, it is the AVG issue IIRC
16:45:01 [Brooks]
let me rephrase... it doesn't have to. There are many ways (notepad included) of changing a FF config file to enable DNT that wouldn't meet the definition of UA
16:45:13 [Chapell]
Mattias: currently, anyone may request an exception for anyone else
16:45:17 [aleecia]
q?
16:45:22 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
16:45:25 [npdoty]
rigo is talking about issue-151
16:45:34 [Chapell]
Mattias - the marketplace will sort this issue out (Re: 151)
16:45:45 [hober]
ISSUE-151?
16:45:45 [trackbot]
ISSUE-151 -- User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request -- raised
16:45:45 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/151
16:45:53 [aleecia]
Brooks, Rigo made an interesting suggestion in issue-151, which was that we limit UAs to only those that can accept exceptions
16:45:55 [npdoty]
fielding, I see 153 that we recently raised, but don't know which issue is the "AVG issue"
16:46:19 [fielding]
yes, 153 is the new (more specific issue)
16:46:33 [rigo]
you can fix the AVG issue with resolving issue-151
16:46:34 [Chapell]
Mattias: 3 step structure
16:46:35 [aleecia]
That would change the Notepad issue iff we talk through Rigo's proposal and adopt it
16:46:50 [fielding]
I was thinking of 149
16:46:55 [npdoty]
rigo, depending on how we resolve 151
16:47:03 [aleecia]
We should talk through that and see where we are before we get much further along in other issues
16:47:14 [aleecia]
(again, one of the things that I thought we'd get to on Tuesday)
16:47:15 [Brooks]
So if we take Rigo's change what limitiations does this place on non-UAs? none?
16:47:17 [Chapell]
Mattias: 1. Well known URL (WKL), 2. [maybe] + header, and 3. [Maybe] + further informaiton
16:47:17 [tl]
+q
16:47:49 [rigo]
if the AVG plugin integrates well in a browser that is able to handle the exception mechanism, fine. If the only thing it can do is sending DNT:1 then not fine
16:48:04 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:48:41 [aleecia]
Note that we have not talked this through. We may or may not adopt Rigo's proposal. But we should know which way we're going before we open up the rest, since it changes the discussion quite a bit (potentially)
16:48:43 [Chapell]
TL: User agent must hit the well known URI requesting a site - if response includes no header, you are done
16:48:46 [npdoty]
rigo, I don't think we should add such a requirement, although I expect most users to have user agents with exception-handling mechanisms
16:49:00 [aleecia]
we'll talk it through
16:49:10 [tl]
Not quite what I said.
16:49:23 [Chapell]
TL: can you rephrase?
16:49:29 [aleecia]
we have two choices, no doubt there will be at least three opinions :-)
16:49:38 [Brooks]
very good. glad you see the potential scope of the complication
16:50:01 [tl]
tl: there are required fields, and the UA would only know that they are missing after going through all three steps (if applicable).
16:50:34 [vincent]
npdoty, I think a way to handle exception might be to refuse (or accept ) them systematically
16:50:42 [aleecia]
q?
16:50:50 [vincent]
in such case that might be a very lightweight requriement
16:50:56 [Chapell]
Roy: these requests are only made by a client looking to know about tracking status - many clients will not need to go through these steps
16:51:19 [Chapell]
Group agrees
16:51:31 [rigo]
npdoty: :) it would be more enlightening, if you could tell why such a requirement would be harmful. Harmful to what and harmful to whom?
16:51:49 [aleecia]
we'll talk it through
16:51:58 [aleecia]
we're not going to figure it out in IRC right now
16:52:35 [aleecia]
what I was aiming for was to explain the order of issues we'll be talking about
16:52:46 [npdoty]
q+ to ask whether all servers can always determine the status via URI
16:53:32 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
16:53:32 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to ask whether all servers can always determine the status via URI
16:53:36 [Chapell]
Mattias: need to discuss what happens when you get the request via all three mechanism?
16:54:05 [tl]
+q
16:54:29 [ssilberman]
ssilberman has joined #dnt
16:54:41 [jeffwilson]
q
16:54:53 [djm]
djm has joined #dnt
16:54:54 [Chapell]
Mattias: Roy says Posting all info on the well known URL solves this issue. Ian may disagree
16:54:55 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:55:07 [aleecia]
jeff, you may want q+ or q?
16:55:26 [Chapell]
TL: Need to add a component to the root well known URL
16:55:28 [rigo]
q?
16:55:43 [jeffwilson]
q?
16:55:46 [amyc]
q+
16:55:47 [felten]
You can add yourself to the queue by saying q+
16:55:52 [jeffwilson]
q+
16:56:19 [Chapell]
Roy: There is already a way to indicate that there is no need for further headers
16:56:26 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
16:56:50 [npdoty]
just to clarify, do we need to explicitly say that the "more information" header overrides the root URI status?
16:57:32 [Chapell]
disagreement between Roy and TL on approach
16:58:30 [Chapell]
JeffW: What is the user agent to rely upon?
16:58:40 [Chapell]
TL: The most recent message they receive
16:59:08 [npdoty]
tl: have we eliminated the path-based URIs? fielding: yes. tl: done.
17:00:19 [aleecia]
best summary yet
17:00:28 [Chapell]
MATTIAS: keep it simple: the only thing that needs to be communicated is- I'm a "XXX" party and I comply with the spec
17:00:39 [npdoty]
fielding, are we sure that path-based URIs are gone? "A user agent may check the tracking status for a given resource URI by making a retrieval request for the well-known address /.well-known/dnt relative to that URI."
17:01:48 [Chapell]
Amy: For those who might be a first party or third party, can they simply say "if i'm a first party, I'll do XX and if I'm a 3rd party, I'll do YYY?
17:02:29 [fielding]
npdoty, that is relateive to the real request URI
17:02:57 [fielding]
i.e, same domain for absolute path
17:03:02 [Chapell]
Mattias: seperate distinction and communication needed for times when acting as 1st party vs 3rd party
17:03:50 [npdoty]
fielding, right, does a browser that wants to do verification load /.well-known/dnt/rest/of/path? what about those servers that aren't using that technique, but need to use headers to specific more information policies? /cc tl
17:04:00 [aleecia]
q?
17:04:04 [aleecia]
ack amyc
17:04:04 [Chapell]
Mattias: this allows the user agent to detect a first party element in the middle of the page
17:04:21 [aleecia]
s / Mattias / Matthias
17:04:48 [ifette]
q+
17:04:57 [npdoty]
ack jeffwilson
17:04:59 [npdoty]
ack ifette
17:05:06 [aleecia]
ack ifette
17:05:16 [aleecia]
q?
17:05:21 [Chapell]
Ifette: will Matthias' suggestion enable a cheap way of conducting third party content blocking?
17:05:37 [Chapell]
TL: Isn't already easy to do third party content blocking?
17:06:54 [Chapell]
Roy: it can dynamically switch
17:07:20 [aleecia]
q?
17:07:31 [tl]
+q
17:07:58 [Chapell]
Roy: The resopnse comes back from the server - the server rarely has control of how the individual page elements exist on the page
17:08:23 [Chapell]
Roy: The intention here is allow Google to say "because I know this request comes from Google, then I know its a first party"
17:08:29 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:08:47 [Chapell]
Roy: Conversely, when I know its not from Google, then I know i need to adhere to the 3rd party rules
17:09:13 [npdoty]
ifette, does fielding's last comment address your concern? you couldn't correctly figure out by resource whether a URI is reliably a 3rd-party
17:09:24 [aleecia]
q?
17:09:53 [fielding]
s/not from Google/not from an embedded request on a Google site/
17:10:07 [Chapell]
Rigo: this is too compliacated. We already have the possibility to declare. Take it outside, folks (:
17:10:32 [Chapell]
TL / Ifette to discuss later - but not in the spec
17:10:37 [npdoty]
schunter: "naturally, everybody is free to discuss whatever they like"
17:10:41 [Chapell]
not necessarily in the spec
17:11:10 [Chapell]
Next Issue -- Data Tranmitted Via URL
17:11:19 [tl]
tl & ifette agree not to discuss it later.
17:11:28 [Chapell]
What data should be conveyed by servers?
17:12:27 [tl]
+q
17:13:03 [npdoty]
"p" currently indicates "prior consent", but I think in the compliance doc we refer to "out-of-band consent"
17:13:25 [aleecia]
We will certainly need an editing pass to get it all uniform
17:13:28 [robsherman]
q+
17:13:43 [aleecia]
One plan: the editors will swap documents for an editing pass
17:13:56 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:14:09 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:14:21 [Chapell]
TL: what goes in the tracking status field? No changes to tracking status field
17:14:28 [aleecia]
ack robsherman
17:14:59 [Chapell]
Matthias: wants to make a sub-group to discuss later
17:15:29 [Brooks]
q+
17:15:44 [fielding]
q+
17:15:45 [npdoty]
q+ to ask whether first/third party is required by the current language
17:16:44 [Chapell]
RobSherman: we should figure out the right wording. Tracking / Not-Tracking is problematic
17:16:45 [tl]
+q
17:17:37 [Chapell]
TL: response will be "true" those who don't collect any data may return as "false"
17:18:10 [Chapell]
Matthias: need a sub-group to iron our disagreements
17:18:25 [rigo]
ack Brooks
17:19:10 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:19:14 [Chapell]
Brooks: Does control have a different meaning in a 1st party vs a 3rd party context? TL: Yes
17:19:45 [rigo]
ack fielding
17:19:50 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:19:50 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to ask whether first/third party is required by the current language
17:20:31 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:20:49 [Chapell]
TL: why delegate to a sub-group when we could just discuss this now?
17:21:02 [aleecia]
q?
17:21:16 [amyc]
Thinks Brooks also asked whether same party principles applied to both first and third parties, and Matthias answer was yes
17:21:22 [Chapell]
Matthias: first, a smaller group an reach consensu better... second, we may want two subgroups
17:21:29 [npdoty]
<discussion of Solomon and splitting people>
17:21:31 [aleecia]
+1
17:22:47 [npdoty]
fielding: 1/3 is optional only because you might not be tracking at all. npdoty: so 1/3 is required if the first character is "t". fielding: yes.
17:22:51 [Chapell]
Next Issue: Data Minimization Survey
17:23:22 [tl]
+q
17:23:28 [aleecia]
(I agree with TL that we had consensus around Ninja's text, but readily admit I do not follow TPE issues as closely as Compliance. However, I thought we had this done. And we probably should use a different word other than "tracking" since that's not capturing the idea)
17:23:30 [npdoty]
q+ WileyS
17:23:35 [aleecia]
q?
17:23:36 [rigo]
q+
17:24:05 [Chapell]
Fieds: Mandatory -- I like I can't live with I can't live without
17:24:30 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
17:25:02 [npdoty]
ack tl
17:25:03 [Chapell]
TL: Likes all of these fields - maybe we add audit field and others down the road
17:25:20 [Chapell]
Shane and TL agree - next, the Cubs win the series
17:25:23 [aleecia]
So close
17:25:23 [Joanne]
+1 to optional audit field
17:25:25 [npdoty]
+1 on audit/auditors
17:25:36 [aleecia]
+1
17:25:48 [aleecia]
We had agreed it would be an array of URIs
17:26:01 [Chapell]
Rigo: believes its vital to have a pointer to a P3P
17:26:25 [jmayer]
Yep. Haven't heard any objection to an optional audit field.
17:26:27 [npdoty]
not sure Rigo was saying it was vital, just that it would be nice to have an optional field for pointing to a P3P policy
17:27:04 [sean]
sean has joined #dnt
17:27:08 [Chapell]
Shane - we are discussing the elements, but not the specifics of what goes into each field
17:27:28 [Joanne]
how about a optional pointer to a machine readable policy tather than perscribing that it be P3P policy
17:27:32 [Chapell]
Rigo: Doesn't like header + code being optional
17:27:39 [npdoty]
s/ - we/: we/
17:28:07 [fielding]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#status-representation
17:28:25 [fielding]
"The content of such a policy document is beyond the scope of this protocol and only supplemental to what is described by this machine-readable tracking status representation. "
17:28:41 [jmayer]
The policy field is intended as a pointer to a human-readable policy, not a P3P policy.
17:28:52 [aleecia]
q?
17:28:56 [rigo]
ack rig
17:29:03 [Chapell]
Matthias: anything missing from the list?
17:29:05 [npdoty]
fielding, rigo, does "supplementable" mean that it doesn't contradict?
17:29:18 [Chapell]
Aleecia: an optional audit field would be helpful
17:29:56 [npdoty]
any objections to an audit field?
17:30:06 [aleecia]
Awesome
17:30:14 [aleecia]
q?
17:30:27 [npdoty]
no objections to the audit field.
17:30:52 [aleecia]
Resolved: Roy to add audit field as an optional multiple URI field
17:30:55 [fielding]
action on fielding to add audit field
17:30:55 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:31:16 [Chapell]
Truste pinky swears us that this won't create additional complications and uncertainty in the marketplace (:
17:31:29 [rigo]
for the record, I'm opposed to the policy field as it may contradict. At least we should have language that it can't contradict the semantics of the compliance specification
17:31:30 [Joanne]
:)
17:31:36 [npdoty]
action: fielding to add optional audit field array
17:31:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-219 - Add optional audit field array [on Roy Fielding - due 2012-06-29].
17:32:12 [fielding]
rigo, the language is already in the spec and quoted above
17:32:19 [aleecia]
I don't wish to kill puppies. We're fine.
17:32:40 [rigo]
fielding: I'm scrolling and scrolling and not finding
17:32:48 [Chapell]
Next Issue: User-granted Exceptions
17:32:51 [npdoty]
I think rigo wants to make it clear that having sent a link to the policy in the response status does not imply that the user agent has accepted all the details of that policy (which could even contradict other claims about DNT)
17:32:51 [fielding]
10:28am
17:33:02 [tl]
+q
17:33:16 [npdoty]
"The content of such a policy document is beyond the scope of this protocol and only supplemental to what is described by this machine-readable tracking status representation." rigo, fielding is talking about this sentence in the optional field's paragraph.
17:33:17 [jmayer]
+q
17:33:20 [Chapell]
Agreement to allow site-wide and web-wide exceptions
17:33:26 [Chapell]
Any opposed?
17:33:41 [fielding]
q+
17:33:48 [Chapell]
TL: Top bullet point should be conditional on the bottom bullet
17:34:02 [rigo]
ok, but why should we mandate "human readable" could be also a P3P policy. Just say URI
17:34:06 [npdoty]
tl: we should have site-wide exceptions only if we also have site/site exceptions
17:34:14 [Chapell]
Roy: Doesn't see a need for an exception framework
17:34:15 [rigo]
and "supplemental" is not really the semantics we mean
17:34:56 [hwest]
Exception framework accomplishes different and helpful things that OOBC doesn't
17:35:03 [Chapell]
Roy: Wants sites to keep their existing consent mechansisms
17:35:18 [hwest]
Much easier for users, as long as we use exceptions that can be UI-d well
17:35:27 [jmayer]
How about we reserve the EU compliance discussion for later?
17:35:33 [aleecia]
q?
17:35:39 [jmayer]
The question here is which forms of exception we'll allow.
17:35:47 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:35:47 [hwest]
q+
17:35:51 [Chapell]
Roy: Sites don't trust browsers, so having a browser manage your legally required consent mechanism is problematic
17:35:55 [tl]
-q
17:36:14 [Chapell]
Roy: Sites will have to use cookies anyway
17:36:34 [rigo]
I think it must state that "in case of conflict, the DNT-header semantics will prevail".
17:36:36 [rigo]
q+
17:36:37 [adrianba]
q+
17:36:44 [Chapell]
Roy: The exception mechanism provides very little value to site owners and adds some complications
17:36:49 [WileyS]
q+
17:36:57 [rigo]
q+ npdoty
17:37:03 [Chapell]
Jmayer: What is topic? EU compliance or Exception framework?
17:37:04 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:37:04 [dwainberg]
q+
17:37:13 [Chapell]
JMayer: Deal with EU later.....
17:37:54 [aleecia]
(sorry, Nick)
17:38:25 [Chapell]
JMayer: don't constrain browsers or sites - give options
17:38:36 [npdoty]
ack hwest
17:38:52 [Chapell]
HWest: having this programatic browser based mgt tool will be helpful -
17:39:07 [aleecia]
q?
17:39:27 [Chapell]
Hwest: having exceptions will be helpful with implimentation and user experience
17:39:36 [aleecia]
ack rigo
17:39:36 [jmayer]
Google doesn't think it can present a good explicit/explicit UI, Mozilla does. Why constrain browser UI innovation with the API?
17:40:09 [ifette]
q+
17:40:10 [Chapell]
Rigo: How do you revert user consent without providing multiple channels
17:40:19 [hwest]
Because it expands complexity for other entities for no good reason
17:40:37 [aleecia]
zakim, close queue
17:40:37 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
17:40:40 [Chapell]
Roy: If this implementation adds six months to process, then that is bad - and there are no implementations of this features yet
17:40:40 [aleecia]
q?
17:40:45 [aleecia]
zakim, open queue
17:40:45 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is open
17:40:54 [aleecia]
going once...
17:41:01 [aleecia]
going twice...
17:41:06 [aleecia]
zakim, close queue
17:41:06 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
17:41:06 [BerinSzoka]
+q
17:41:14 [aleecia]
zakim, open queue
17:41:14 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is open
17:41:23 [aleecia]
q+ BerinSzoka
17:41:29 [aleecia]
close queue
17:41:30 [jmayer]
+q
17:41:33 [Chapell]
Adrianba: sympathetic to Roy's position. Many pubs would not want this generated on their pages. There would be a need for 1st and 3rd parties to agree. Also questions whether there will be demand.
17:41:36 [npdoty]
Zakim, close queue
17:41:36 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
17:41:49 [Chapell]
Adrianba: if we agree that the mechanism should be provided, then lets start simply
17:42:05 [aleecia]
ack adrianba
17:42:09 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:42:30 [npdoty]
q-
17:42:40 [adrianba]
s/start simply/start simply and add more sophistication later if required/
17:42:52 [npdoty]
thx WileyS for as expected making my arguments redundant
17:43:04 [Chapell]
Shane: Without exceptions, this moves us to an out-of band consent world. this provides users with a centralized place to make their choices
17:43:39 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
17:43:40 [Chapell]
Shane: re: Eprivacy.... The consent bound with site-wide or web-wide COULD meet eprivacy
17:44:24 [aleecia]
ack ifette
17:44:27 [Chapell]
DWainberg: Durability of user choice is imporant. Choice to allow tracking should also be durable. Having this in there will help implementability.
17:44:51 [Chapell]
Dwainberg: The idea that we leave out important parts of this spec based upon time is problematic: better to get it right than to do it fast
17:45:23 [Chapell]
Ifette: Not sure how one does out-of band conent in a safari browser that blocks 3rd party cookies
17:45:43 [Chapell]
Roy: In Safari, first party may pass to third parties
17:45:47 [aleecia]
ack BerinSzoka
17:46:04 [Chapell]
Ifette: However, thatt still makes web wide exceptions impossible in Safari
17:46:20 [npdoty]
it would also be a pain for first parties to always have to relay on remembered out-of-band consent to each third party
17:46:59 [npdoty]
BerinSzoka: lowers transaction costs for negotiating and remembering/managing
17:47:06 [Chapell]
Berin: With significant adoption of DNT: User preferences may actually be frustrated without exceptions. Without a tool, you create a mechanism that significantly changes the equilibrium in the ecosystem
17:47:27 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:47:32 [Chapell]
Berin: If the point of DNT is to enable privacy choices, why not spend time on this?
17:47:52 [Chapell]
JMayer: alot of the concern has been with the alignment of EU law.
17:48:00 [npdoty]
is there anyone other than fielding that wants to drop exceptions altogether? can fielding live with the exception mechanism?
17:48:18 [aleecia]
q?
17:48:41 [Chapell]
Matthias: anyone violently oppose the API?
17:49:09 [Chapell]
Roy: Doesn't like it, and not sure he can live with Expicit-Explicit pairs.... next topic
17:49:20 [npdoty]
I agree that it's easy. :)
17:49:24 [jmayer]
My point: The API could allow for plain-text explanation and a read more link. That would facilitate EU law compliance.
17:49:33 [Chapell]
Thanks JM
17:49:42 [npdoty]
jmayer, yes, we already have those optional parameters in the API
17:50:11 [Chapell]
Matthias: enumerate all parties on the site.
17:50:22 [Chapell]
Matthias: a first party may not know all the parties on the site
17:50:51 [aleecia]
side conversations are becoming problematic… there are side rooms around us if you want to step out for five minutes
17:51:34 [jmayer]
+q
17:51:40 [aleecia]
zakim, open queue
17:51:40 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is open
17:51:44 [aleecia]
q+ jmayer
17:52:02 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
17:53:02 [npdoty]
q+
17:53:02 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:53:03 [adrianba]
q+
17:53:04 [tl]
+q
17:53:17 [fielding]
q+
17:53:20 [Chapell]
JMayer: is this the same proposal re: taking a snapshot? Matthias: YES
17:53:27 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:53:30 [meme]
meme has joined #dnt
17:53:59 [Chapell]
NDoty: What is the intent of the partners field? All partners or only partners needed an exception?
17:54:00 [jmayer]
As David Singer and I explained on the mailing list, this seems a counter-intuitive, difficult-to-deploy version of an explicit-explicit exception API.
17:55:00 [aleecia]
ack adrianba
17:55:02 [ifette]
q+
17:55:10 [rigo]
I don't understand. Just declare nothing and then its site wide
17:55:12 [Chapell]
Ndoty: not sure this solves the problem
17:55:24 [rigo]
q+
17:55:43 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:55:52 [Chapell]
Matthias: If User has consented to say, 3 parties, NEW parties are not lincluded
17:55:53 [npdoty]
as I understand it, it's always site-wide, it's always an explicit list of every party or an implicit list of every party
17:56:11 [Chapell]
Adrianba: How do I get additional third parties into the exception?
17:56:20 [npdoty]
but you still don't have the advantage of being able to ask for a subset of parties, and now you have the complexity of updates to the partner list
17:56:32 [amyc]
how does "delegate further" work -- would this be as service provider
17:56:57 [Chapell]
Matthias: Need to call the API repeatedly so the User Agent can say that the number of partners has changed
17:57:00 [aleecia]
(sorry for early ack, Tom.)
17:57:17 [npdoty]
I think we should also be concerned about "delegate further" if you can just re-direct to a potentially limitless number of other parties
17:57:22 [vinay_]
Amy - I believe its the transitive party. So, if I get consent for AppNexus since that's the party the site contracts with, the consent is transferred over to the ad networks serving ads thru AppNexus
17:57:25 [aleecia]
q?
17:57:37 [Chapell]
TL: This doesn't give users the info that they need? I don't know which 3rd parties I'm giving consent to track me
17:57:43 [vinay_]
Which is why I don't think this actually helps consumers
17:57:46 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:57:51 [npdoty]
q+ chester
17:58:25 [Chapell]
Roy: Its not reasonable to require java script API's to make all of this information -- its more efficient for the java scrtip to KNOW what partners are on its list
17:58:27 [johnsimpson]
q?
17:58:28 [aleecia]
ack ifette
17:58:41 [Chapell]
Roy: Its not reasonable to require java script API's to make all of this information -- its more efficient for the java scrtip to KNOW what partners are on its list
17:58:58 [npdoty]
fielding: had removed the list of partners from the spec because I don't want JavaScript APIs to require initiating another HTTP request
17:59:05 [jmayer]
+
17:59:08 [jmayer]
+q
17:59:20 [Chapell]
IFette: the pointer to the list of parties was helpful for auditing from regulators and others
17:59:22 [aleecia]
zakim close queue
17:59:31 [npdoty]
Zakim, close queue
17:59:31 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
18:00:03 [npdoty]
the same as a site-wide exception in that it simply is a site-wide exception
18:00:05 [Joanne]
can consent be delegated to the first party?
18:00:10 [Chapell]
Matthias: by putting this info in the partners space, you can't have user agent innovations
18:00:29 [tl]
+q
18:00:31 [aleecia]
ack rigo
18:01:07 [Chapell]
Rigo: May want to descriminate against certain third parties.
18:01:48 [aleecia]
ack chester
18:01:52 [ifette]
s/can't have user/can have user/
18:02:22 [Chapell]
JeffChester: Agrees with TL. Users need to know who the partners are. And if they have said they don't want to be tracked by XXX, then we need to accomodate this
18:02:26 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
18:02:39 [Chapell]
JMayer: This is optional API with a strange design --- low implimentation.
18:02:58 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
18:03:00 [npdoty]
jchester: need to know who wins the bid in an ad exchange for example, who's actually tracking them
18:03:37 [Chapell]
Matthias: Who objects to Explicit / Explicit?
18:03:47 [Chapell]
TL: Doesn't like E/E design
18:04:04 [npdoty]
scribing has just missed something
18:04:07 [jmayer]
My proposal: let's discuss an (optional?) explicit-explicit JS API instead of this weird, backwards design.
18:04:13 [jmayer]
+q
18:04:17 [aleecia]
I can cut off the queue but not my co-chair
18:04:26 [npdoty]
schunter: who objects to this particular handling/implementation of explicit exceptions?
18:04:30 [npdoty]
tl: don't like this design.
18:04:38 [aleecia]
tl, +1
18:05:19 [jmayer]
I think this technical design is *really* bad.
18:05:29 [rigo]
jeff, how can you know who takes the market in a bid? You can't know who will take the market. Having all partners known beforehand is just not possible with auctions. So it would just prohibit auctions
18:05:53 [rigo]
and the smart alternative is to make those responsible who create the legal framework for those auction systems
18:06:03 [rigo]
and cater to the system
18:06:15 [rigo]
aka the third parties directly contacted
18:06:21 [npdoty]
continue in large group after the break
18:06:30 [jmayer]
Asking browsers to snapshot a JSON resource and handle versioning on it = lolwut.
18:08:52 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
18:20:11 [felten]
felten has joined #dnt
18:21:16 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
18:37:20 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
18:39:50 [sean]
sean has joined #dnt
18:40:28 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
18:41:20 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
18:41:20 [npdoty]
<welcome back from break>
18:41:27 [hwest_]
hwest_ has joined #dnt
18:41:34 [npdoty]
schunter: some people continued this discussion, perhaps with a proposed solution
18:41:53 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
18:41:58 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
18:42:08 [npdoty]
scribenick: jmayer
18:42:14 [npdoty]
sidstamm to back up
18:42:18 [npdoty]
q?
18:42:27 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
18:42:44 [npdoty]
Topic: Post-Break, more exceptions
18:42:47 [aleecia]
tl, two use cases for explicit, explicit can be solved:
18:42:59 [aleecia]
tl, partners field in URI avail to UA
18:43:08 [fielding]
in resource
18:43:18 [jmayer]
tl: two challenges
18:43:24 [aleecia]
…, 2nd, if want DNT:1 nearly all the time but send DNT:0 except for evil corp
18:43:25 [jmayer]
... 1) transparency in third parties
18:43:29 [RobGratchner]
RobGratchner has joined #dnt
18:43:33 [jmayer]
... accomplish with partners field
18:43:58 [jmayer]
... 2) exceptions to site-wide exceptions (e.g. all ok but EvilCorp)
18:44:21 [jmayer]
... "i accept your exception except"
18:44:34 [jmayer]
+q
18:44:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, open queue
18:44:39 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
18:44:46 [fielding]
and by that tl means that evilcorp will continue to receive DNT:1
18:45:03 [sidstamm]
jmayer: few different cases where explicit-explicit might be involved
18:45:16 [aleecia]
we will really need to find a way to figure out how to talk about this that isn't just insane
18:45:17 [sidstamm]
... transparency about third parties, exceptions to site-wide, and a third use-case
18:45:34 [sidstamm]
... what about when a first party wants to request exceptions for third parties (a subset of third parties on their site)
18:45:59 [sidstamm]
Matthias: clarify, please, in your proposal do you allow UAs to snapshot partners list or can they ignore?
18:46:04 [sidstamm]
tl: partners list is informational
18:46:16 [jmayer]
tl: in my proposal, the partners list is optional
18:46:21 [npdoty]
aleecia, this doesn't feel insane to me
18:46:26 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
18:46:28 [dwainberg]
q+
18:46:30 [jmayer]
... user agents doesn't have to look at list of partners
18:46:36 [jmayer]
... but if it wants to, it can
18:46:38 [jmayer]
+q
18:46:48 [susanisrael]
Is the site responsible for passing that preference to evilcorp or does evilcorp receive it directly?
18:46:54 [aleecia]
no it's not, but talking about exceptions to exceptions is non-trivial for comprehension. We'll need better wording is all
18:47:02 [egrant]
+q
18:47:02 [sidstamm]
Matthias: would like to include language calling out that UAs can use the partner info
18:47:07 [sidstamm]
tl: I don't think we need to specify it
18:47:15 [sidstamm]
Matthias: <disagrees with tl>
18:47:18 [jmayer]
matthias: want to see language about how UA may downscope exception (i.e. send DNT: 0 to certain sites)
18:47:25 [npdoty]
susanisrael, in all of these exception examples so far, the signal is sent directly on each request (e.g. directly to evilcorp)
18:47:26 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
18:47:37 [susanisrael]
nick, thanks
18:47:37 [jmayer]
tl: why do we need language on browser innovation?
18:47:59 [jmayer]
dwainberg: how does the browser implement something like an exclusion list?
18:48:00 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #dnt
18:48:17 [jmayer]
tl: up to user agent, user choice
18:48:29 [ifette]
q+
18:48:39 [WileyS]
+q
18:48:39 [ifette]
q-
18:48:41 [npdoty]
tl: could share lists, or otherwise configure your browser
18:48:44 [jmayer]
dwainberg: what if a third party wants ask the user for consent?
18:48:55 [jmayer]
matthias: it can ask for out-of-band consent
18:49:04 [jmayer]
dwainberg: concerned with how this works
18:49:05 [aleecia]
q?
18:49:17 [jmayer]
matthias: can ask the API again, too
18:49:38 [jmayer]
tl: it's the user's choice, a site can ask politely
18:49:49 [npdoty]
dwainberg: how can a third party ask the user to re-consider their opt-out determination
18:49:58 [sidstamm]
jmayer: sounds like there's not agreement on language about browsers downscoping site-wide exceptions
18:50:06 [sidstamm]
... but there's substance agreement
18:50:20 [sidstamm]
... but we've backed ourselves into a "super-jankety" explicit-explicit api
18:50:31 [sidstamm]
... might make sense to have an explicit-explicit api that's optional for UAs
18:50:44 [wheeler]
q+
18:50:54 [npdoty]
ack jmayer
18:50:57 [jmayer]
scribenick: jmayer
18:51:24 [jmayer]
s/on language/on explicit "MAY" language/
18:51:26 [meme]
meme has joined #dnt
18:51:29 [aleecia]
ack egrant
18:51:34 [jmayer]
tl: did you just volunteer to write this matthias?
18:51:47 [jmayer]
matthias: sure, i'll capture the view
18:52:09 [npdoty]
action: schunter to write up tl/matthias sub-group agreement on exception approach
18:52:09 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - schunter
18:52:09 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mschunte2, mschunte)
18:52:12 [jmayer]
egrant: many companies operate services that are both first party and third party
18:52:15 [aleecia]
q?
18:52:16 [jmayer]
tl: follow the rules
18:52:24 [jmayer]
... about first party and third party sharing
18:52:28 [npdoty]
action: mschunte2 to write up tl/matthias sub-group agreement on exception approach
18:52:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-220 - Write up tl/matthias sub-group agreement on exception approach [on Matthias Schunter - due 2012-06-29].
18:52:52 [aleecia]
q?
18:52:57 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
18:53:17 [jmayer]
WileyS: Understand how user agent might be configured to auto-reject certain exception requests.
18:53:25 [jmayer]
... How would the flow for exceptions work?
18:53:39 [jmayer]
tl: Use the existing APIs.
18:53:45 [ifette]
q+
18:53:49 [jmayer]
+q
18:55:00 [jmayer]
ifette: Not as bad as Shane says. In a site-wide exception response, there might be some exclusions. Get to decide how to respond to that. Might not care (e.g. social widget), might care and message the user, do things.
18:55:10 [CraigSpiezle]
CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
18:55:47 [jmayer]
WileyS: What about when a user overrides with an out-of-band consent?
18:55:51 [jmayer]
tl: Same, again.
18:56:08 [aleecia]
ack wheeler
18:56:20 [jmayer]
WileyS: Makes life harder for first parties, can't just look at DNT header
18:56:40 [ifette]
q-
18:56:42 [erikn]
q?
18:56:51 [kimon]
kimon has joined #dnt
18:57:08 [jmayer]
matthias: Have to do careful reasoning about third parties with/without exceptions anyways.
18:57:22 [npdoty]
I think we may need to help WileyS whether we have these web-wide opt-outs or not
18:58:13 [jmayer]
wheeler: What happens when there's a site-wide exception?
18:58:29 [jmayer]
tl: They don't have to comply with the restrictions of DNT.
18:58:31 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
18:58:54 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
18:59:17 [sidstamm]
jmayer: not discusing whether first party can get exceptions for third parties, rather we're discussing whether or not all third parties on the site need to get exceptions
18:59:41 [jmayer]
-q
18:59:43 [sidstamm]
... the question is, can we select which third parties get exceptions
19:00:22 [jmayer]
scribenick: jmayer
19:00:27 [jmayer]
(was sidstamm)
19:00:39 [jmayer]
matthias: moving on to out-of-band consent
19:01:16 [jmayer]
... question is, should we have a mechanism for storing out-of-band consent in the browser?
19:01:27 [jmayer]
s/mechanism/dedicated mechnism/
19:01:31 [npdoty]
action: mayer to draft optional version of explicit/explicit exception api
19:01:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-221 - Draft optional version of explicit/explicit exception api [on Jonathan Mayer - due 2012-06-29].
19:02:03 [tl]
+q
19:02:09 [npdoty]
q+ ifette
19:02:11 [ifette]
q+
19:02:14 [jmayer]
... idea: javascript api that a site can use to flag out-of-band consent
19:02:16 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:02:20 [npdoty]
q+
19:02:20 [jmayer]
tl: isn't this covered in the response headeR?
19:02:30 [jmayer]
s/headeR/header/
19:02:32 [aleecia]
ack ifette
19:03:12 [dwainberg]
q+
19:03:17 [rigo]
q+
19:03:20 [jmayer]
q+
19:03:33 [jmayer]
ifette: Good to be able to store out-of-band consent in the browser because of third-party cookie blocking (?). But let's suppose there's a place to edit the out-of-band consent. How does the site make sure it's getting the latest, correct version?
19:03:51 [jmayer]
tl: If content is removed from storage, the site knows, right?
19:04:19 [fielding]
This would be an in-band way to store out-of-band consent?
19:04:23 [jmayer]
ifette: Setting up potential for conflict.
19:04:31 [dwainberg]
q?
19:04:38 [jmayer]
matthias: If out-of-band is in browser, you get DNT: 0.
19:04:50 [tl]
+q
19:04:51 [jmayer]
rigo: <???>
19:05:07 [jmayer]
ifette: once again, potential for conflicts
19:05:11 [WileyS]
+q
19:05:30 [jmayer]
rigo: no, there's a misunderstanding, an out-of-band answer is a contract independent of DNT, this is just convenience in the browser
19:05:38 [jmayer]
... change in storage doesn't change legal implications
19:06:14 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
19:06:17 [WileyS]
Roy, yes - allows the Server as a tool to store perhaps a broader permission consent and/or control the UI for consent flow
19:06:27 [jmayer]
matthias: think rigo is saying this is about independent mechanism overriding other mechanisms
19:06:35 [ifette]
q+
19:06:41 [jmayer]
<general confusion>
19:06:52 [ifette]
q+ to say oob provides a URL where you can edit your out of band stuff, the browser should just direct the user there
19:06:56 [jmayer]
tl: If there's an out-of-band exception, why store it?
19:07:03 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
19:07:09 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
19:07:14 [WileyS]
Ian, good idea - that can work
19:07:16 [jmayer]
dwainberg: This isn't a control mechanism, it's a storage mechanism.
19:07:30 [jmayer]
matthias: Purely informational for the user agent.
19:07:35 [aleecia]
ack rigo
19:07:41 [jmayer]
tl: If that's what it is, why implement it?
19:07:43 [felten]
q+
19:08:32 [sidstamm]
scribenick: jmayer
19:08:34 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
19:08:35 [tl]
+q sidstamm
19:08:36 [npdoty]
ack jmayer
19:08:55 [jeffwilson]
q+
19:08:59 [sidstamm]
jmayer: so practiaclly, you get the storage, but the browser doesn't intermediate the ui
19:09:12 [sidstamm]
... I thought the point was that the UI in the browser was consistent and provided a central point of control
19:09:24 [sidstamm]
... and that the UA makers could pick UI that are best for the users
19:09:44 [sidstamm]
jmayer: prefers if the browser UI was for intermediating
19:09:50 [jmayer]
scribenick: jmayer
19:09:55 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
19:09:57 [jmayer]
WileyS: The alternative is harmful to the user.
19:09:58 [jmayer]
+q
19:10:06 [aleecia]
…and I skipped Tom, oops
19:10:08 [aleecia]
sorry
19:10:21 [jmayer]
... If the browser has a bad user interface, won't use it.
19:10:36 [aleecia]
tl
19:10:36 [rigo]
the storage of out of band consent in the browser is only positive. It allows the storage of all the consents a user has and an overview of all that information, may be even store a URI where one can manage the out of band consent
19:10:38 [felten]
-q
19:10:42 [npdoty]
in that case, I'm not sure we need a JS api for this
19:10:43 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:10:43 [jmayer]
... At least give the user some centralized control here.
19:10:44 [dwainberg]
q+
19:10:47 [dwainberg]
q?
19:10:58 [jmayer]
... For example, must provide URL for control.
19:11:17 [npdoty]
q+ to don't we already have that just by using the response headers?
19:11:18 [jmayer]
tl: Would you be OK with any site that uses this putting a control element in the well-known URI?
19:11:22 [jmayer]
WileyS: Yes.
19:11:27 [rigo]
q+
19:11:38 [aleecia]
that's a great solution, IMHO
19:11:55 [aleecia]
and gets to the point that users be able to change their minds multiple times a lot better than we had before
19:11:58 [sidstamm]
yes, +1
19:12:00 [jeffwilson]
q-
19:12:05 [rigo]
-1
19:12:16 [aleecia]
ack ifette
19:12:16 [Zakim]
ifette, you wanted to say oob provides a URL where you can edit your out of band stuff, the browser should just direct the user there
19:12:20 [sidstamm]
out-of-band exceptions should be controlled out of band
19:12:22 [rigo]
it just kills your wallet where you store your agreements
19:12:25 [npdoty]
"DNT cookies" in case a user has blocked cookies
19:12:30 [jmayer]
matthias: To be clear: if you want to use the out-of-band consent storage in the browser, fine, but you need to give a control URL such that the browser can put in a button for control.
19:12:35 [jmayer]
tl: Yep.
19:12:38 [jmayer]
WileyS: Yep.
19:13:07 [jmayer]
ifette: Need some place to store consent, might not have third-party cookies.
19:13:20 [aleecia]
ack sidstamm
19:13:22 [felten]
Sudden outbreak of good engineering.
19:13:32 [jmayer]
... Rigo's inconsistency problem only comes from where browser isn't aligned with site preferences.
19:13:36 [jmayer]
... This fixes it.
19:13:42 [tl]
sidstamm: +1 to Ian
19:13:55 [npdoty]
ack npdoty
19:13:55 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to don't we already have that just by using the response headers?
19:13:56 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
19:14:00 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
19:14:02 [sidstamm]
yes, was on the queue to agree with him and how to avoid putting the browser in an "inconsistent" state
19:14:03 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
19:14:21 [WileyS]
Q?
19:14:57 [aleecia]
ack rigo
19:15:05 [tl]
+q
19:15:11 [aleecia]
the odds of people who block cookies and have DNT are a bit higher
19:15:15 [ifette]
q+
19:15:29 [jmayer]
npdoty: some problems of third-party cookie blocking, maybe, but those users might not want to be tracked
19:16:03 [npdoty]
npdoty: and we have most of this functionality (for users) just by browsers optionally remembering when they see an opt-back-in message and including a control link
19:16:32 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:16:42 [npdoty]
"no. what?"
19:17:17 [jmayer]
rigo: should there be a control location in the browser?
19:17:20 [WileyS]
+q
19:17:23 [tl]
+q
19:17:26 [aleecia]
ack ifette
19:17:37 [aleecia]
zakim, close queue
19:17:37 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
19:17:48 [rigo]
q?
19:17:50 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
19:17:50 [jmayer]
ifette: don't understand rigo, think he wants the control URL to be optional, why?
19:18:07 [sidstamm]
if there's no control URI, how do users properly revoke it?
19:18:09 [aleecia]
q?
19:18:16 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:18:34 [rigo]
rigo wants simply that the UA can store all out of band consents, whether managed or not
19:18:45 [jmayer]
WileyS: Seems reasonable, in some cases control directly in browser, in some cases follow control link.
19:18:51 [jmayer]
matthias: Any opposition?
19:18:54 [sidstamm]
works for me
19:18:55 [ifette]
ACTION: ifette to document out-of-band js api
19:18:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-222 - Document out-of-band js api [on Ian Fette - due 2012-06-29].
19:19:00 [jmayer]
npdoty: Want to see text.
19:19:06 [aleecia]
shhhh
19:20:10 [rigo]
I think though that is covered by the possibility to convey information also by other means. But the js api shouldn't prohibit to just convey information without control - URI
19:20:20 [WileyS]
+q
19:20:21 [tl]
+q
19:20:26 [jmayer]
matthias: possible discussions are non-compliant user agents and tracking status resources
19:20:37 [WileyS]
=q
19:20:42 [WileyS]
q-
19:20:42 [jmayer]
... going to focus on tracking status resource
19:20:52 [aleecia]
zakim, open queue
19:20:52 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is open
19:21:00 [tl]
+q
19:21:14 [jmayer]
... working from tom's brussels proposals
19:21:37 [jmayer]
<explaining tom's proposals>
19:21:45 [tl]
Tom would like to do this.
19:21:55 [tl]
And actually, use his DC proposal.
19:22:21 [npdoty]
we don't have a service-provider code in the Response Value section at the moment
19:22:31 [rigo]
q+
19:22:44 [aleecia]
let's let Matthias talk through first if we can
19:22:59 [jmayer]
... notion is a reasonable degree of transparency in practices
19:23:12 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:23:14 [jmayer]
... roy has a proposal with more fields
19:23:41 [jmayer]
tl: why use my abbreviated brussels proposal instead of my more recent washington proposal?
19:25:08 [jmayer]
tl: <explaining latest proposal>
19:25:19 [robsherman]
q+
19:25:53 [jmayer]
matthias: question for roy - fundamentally different?
19:26:01 [jmayer]
roy: similar, but treat service provider as first party
19:26:04 [aleecia]
ack rigo
19:26:22 [jmayer]
matthias: save this small difference, the same
19:27:03 [npdoty]
tl has a "c" for consent and roy has a "p" for prior consent
19:27:26 [npdoty]
tl: existence of the response is the indicator that you comply with the user's preference
19:27:55 [jmayer]
<frustrated cross-talk>
19:28:17 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
19:28:17 [jmayer]
tl: response header is a commitment to follow the DNT specification, indicates applicable parts
19:28:20 [npdoty]
rigo: if I send a DNT signal to a wall, it won't comply
19:28:24 [felten]
q?
19:29:14 [jmayer]
<more frustrated cross-talk>
19:29:31 [amyc]
amyc wants to ask whether this header is optional, as we decided before break?
19:30:01 [npdoty]
amyc, this response will also appear in the well-known URI, I believe
19:30:08 [rigo]
my point is that the current text is not really ok for creating matching declarations to create consent
19:30:21 [rigo]
if we have consent + additional information, fine
19:30:40 [WileyS]
+q
19:30:49 [jmayer]
tl: this is a short way for a website to explain what it's doing
19:30:50 [aleecia]
ack robsherman
19:31:06 [rigo]
but if we say, see I only promise to honor this part of the specification we may have a dissent between the user and the service
19:31:08 [jmayer]
matthias: ok, yes, a commitment to follow the spec and possibly additional information
19:31:39 [jmayer]
rob: can't commit to track or not track when there's no clear definition
19:31:46 [aleecia]
we could use different names, yes
19:31:55 [amyc]
q+
19:32:18 [jmayer]
tl: this is about "definitely-not-tracking" - where a (very unusual) site collects essentially no information
19:32:19 [fielding]
q+
19:32:25 [npdoty]
ninja's definition of "absolutely not tracking": http://www.w3.org/mid/4F3935E4.4030101@datenschutzzentrum.de
19:32:27 [jmayer]
... information that is entirely arvind-proof
19:32:40 [npdoty]
(some people don't think we should define that at all, or rather that we shouldn't use that name)
19:32:41 [alex_]
alex_ has joined #dnt
19:32:54 [jmayer]
matthias: most enterprises will not use this
19:33:06 [alex_]
q+
19:33:28 [jmayer]
rob: don't like use of the term without more clarity
19:33:48 [aleecia]
q?
19:33:56 [jmayer]
roy: without defining tracking, this violates http semantics. good luck disagreeing with me on that.
19:34:10 [jmayer]
tl: We can define compliance. That's fine.
19:34:31 [aleecia]
q?
19:34:33 [jmayer]
s/compliance/compliance and tokens/
19:35:08 [jmayer]
<cross-talk>
19:35:09 [felten]
Is anyone arguing that these fields should NOT have defined meanings?
19:35:11 [npdoty]
is the only objection that these tokens point to defined terms? everyone agrees we should define terms
19:35:11 [aleecia]
+1
19:35:19 [rigo]
+1 to mts
19:35:29 [dwainberg]
q+
19:35:32 [dwainberg]
q?
19:35:32 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
19:36:00 [npdoty]
q+ to suggest the consent response to address WileyS's use case
19:36:03 [jmayer]
+q
19:36:13 [rigo]
I want the letter F
19:36:14 [jmayer]
matthias: proposal <unclear>
19:36:26 [jmayer]
WileyS: Let's talk about how to respond to non-compliant user agents.
19:36:57 [aleecia]
q?
19:37:00 [jmayer]
matthias: Not quite what we're working on.
19:37:03 [hober]
rigo++
19:37:09 [npdoty]
tl: have an extra token for "reject" or "not complying with the spec on this request"
19:37:18 [jmayer]
aleecia: Still an open issue, have to give it the time it deserves.
19:37:31 [npdoty]
ack amyc
19:37:47 [rigo]
hober :)
19:37:52 [jmayer]
s/have/could have/
19:37:56 [aleecia]
ack amyc
19:38:13 [jmayer]
amyc: could use out-of-band mechanisms for conveying they're super-privacy-preserving
19:38:13 [rigo]
hober, I could also live with fy
19:38:37 [aleecia]
ack fielding
19:38:38 [jmayer]
tl: some companies want to make stronger claims about what they do
19:38:52 [npdoty]
q-
19:38:58 [rigo]
q?
19:39:00 [aleecia]
ack alex_
19:39:27 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
19:39:31 [jmayer]
alex_: Where's the consensus proposal?
19:39:39 [jmayer]
Did someone claim this was consensus?
19:39:57 [npdoty]
will paste in Ninja's email again: http://www.w3.org/mid/4F3935E4.4030101@datenschutzzentrum.de
19:40:14 [jmayer]
dwainberg: Ok if this is an "I think I'm not covered"
19:40:25 [npdoty]
dwainberg, what would "not covered" mean?
19:40:34 [jmayer]
tl: That's not what this is. "n" is a stronger statement than "3"
19:40:47 [jmayer]
matthias: A third class of compliance, super-compliance.
19:41:09 [jmayer]
-q
19:41:21 [hober]
ScribeNick: erikn
19:41:39 [jmayer]
matthias: Any objections to the 1/3/n compliance approach?
19:41:52 [jmayer]
s/compliance/compliance expression/
19:41:58 [erikn]
WileyS: I think there will be a fifth
19:42:14 [erikn]
matthias: agreed that there are *at least* 4: u, 1, 3, n.
19:42:14 [hwest]
So, we will need to outline at least one more state for the compliance doc?
19:42:19 [jmayer]
CONSENSUS: There will be, at minimum, these four values.
19:42:28 [erikn]
… this is in the header field
19:42:37 [npdoty]
everyone can live with at least u/1/3/n in the response header field (and probably similar in the well-known uri)
19:42:40 [aleecia]
Agreed: first character of u, 1, 3, n (obviously new issues could add to this later)
19:42:48 [erikn]
… and is a guiding input for our WKL
19:42:56 [WileyS]
Aleecia - are you going to discuss the next face-to-face soon? Many folks are leaving at 1pm.
19:43:08 [erikn]
… so now let's talk about the next part of that field
19:43:13 [aleecia]
Good point. Short answer:
19:43:20 [aleecia]
We're not done...
19:43:20 [erikn]
… should it be possible to distinguish between a service provider for the first party and others?
19:43:29 [WileyS]
LOL - fairly obvious
19:43:30 [tl]
+q
19:43:42 [erikn]
… maybe we don't need to do that here. expose internal details like that. Doesn't matter if it follows all the requirements
19:43:54 [aleecia]
and the next meeting should likely not be before September since finding time over the summer without running into vacations
19:43:58 [rigo]
hober, I think U+1F4A9 is the think we MUST use
19:44:11 [jmayer]
+q
19:44:12 [erikn]
tl: in the cases where abobe.com (for example) is run by amazon.com, there's a difficulty for the user. not clear what party is guarding their data
19:44:15 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
19:44:26 [aleecia]
Which, as you might guess, kind of kills me to admit. But.
19:44:46 [erikn]
… say I have some analytics company that runs analytics off their domain, and has a service provider relationship. I (user) might think it is a first party, as opposed to "in the shoes of" the first party
19:44:46 [aleecia]
If anyone can volunteer to host in Europe, that would be most welcome
19:44:48 [rigo]
q?
19:44:52 [rigo]
q+
19:44:56 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:45:03 [erikn]
matthias: if they both comply and tell you "1", why do you care?
19:45:22 [erikn]
tl: amazon isn't the same party as adobe. Visiting amazon.com doesn't involved adobe.
19:45:26 [hwest]
q+
19:45:32 [erikn]
Roy: only because you defined party in a way that doesn't make sense to users
19:45:35 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
19:45:50 [erikn]
jmayer: where do we land outsourcing in the spec? Doesn't have to be here.
19:46:09 [npdoty]
a lot of people don't care which particular section we put it in -- +1
19:46:24 [erikn]
… that's one issue. Separate issue: when the user gets a response, can determine if it is an "ordinary" first party versus an entity that's doing outsourcing stuff
19:46:32 [Chesterj2]
Chesterj2 has joined #dnt
19:46:42 [aleecia]
Shane, does that answer what you were looking for?
19:46:45 [erikn]
… I think we should be able to distinguish, in part due to the risk of claiming outsourcing to stretch the 1st-party definition
19:46:50 [Chesterj2]
+q
19:47:07 [aleecia]
ack rigo
19:47:08 [npdoty]
jmayer: I think it's important to have transparency, given how some have suggested using the outsourcing exception
19:47:08 [erikn]
… again, this is separate from if there is a different token in this header field to distinguish this
19:48:26 [erikn]
rigo: we try with our definitions to explain relationships (like one processes data on behalf of another), then we might end up describing all relationships like who hosts this server's cloud data
19:48:31 [felten]
q?
19:48:31 [aleecia]
ack hwest
19:48:35 [erikn]
… the header field is not the right location to do that
19:48:49 [felten]
q+
19:48:51 [tl]
+q
19:49:01 [erikn]
hwest: can decide we want to pack a lot of data into this header, but that isn't realistic. What is actionable knowing this is a service provider?
19:49:02 [jmayer]
+q
19:49:09 [aleecia]
ack Chesterj
19:49:16 [rigo]
perhaps you want more information on service providers and explicit third parties and what they do, but that shouldn't go into the header
19:49:26 [rigo]
q+
19:49:30 [fielding]
q+
19:49:36 [aleecia]
ack felten
19:49:40 [erikn]
Chesterj: I think transparency is important. Users will make decisions as they learn about the process based on practices of service providers
19:49:42 [jmayer]
hwest, see my earlier comment about transparency into how the outsourcing exception is used. Want to be sure it's not getting stretched.
19:50:02 [erikn]
hwest: if my 3rd party is Amazon, you don't have a choice to not interact with them if you want to use my website
19:50:15 [aleecia]
ack felten
19:50:15 [erikn]
Chesterj2: right, I can choose not to interact with you
19:50:56 [aleecia]
ack tl
19:50:56 [erikn]
felten: say I go to a.com and it uses sp.com. I might care if sp.com is a service provider or a first party, because it changes their ability to share data
19:51:15 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
19:51:41 [erikn]
jmayer: … agreeing with the preceding
19:51:44 [dwainberg]
q+
19:52:13 [erikn]
… there are benefits even to the DNT ecosystem, outside of any individual user. research, regulatory, and other interests
19:52:14 [aleecia]
ack rigo
19:52:31 [aleecia]
going once...
19:52:41 [aleecia]
zakim, close queue
19:52:41 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
19:53:03 [rvaneijk]
"For the EU, the outsourcing scenario is clearly regulated. In the current EU Directive 95/46/EC, but also in the suggested regulation reforming the data protection regime, an entity using or processing data is subject to data protection law. A First Party (EU: data controller) is an entity or multiple entities (EU: joint data controller) who determines the purposes, conditions and means of...
19:53:05 [rvaneijk]
...the data processing will be the data controller. A service provider (EU: data processor) is an entity with a legal contractual relation to the Data Controller. The Service Provider does determine the purposes, conditions and means of the data processing, but processes data on behalf of the controller. The data processor acts on behalf of the data controller and is a separate legal entity....
19:53:06 [rvaneijk]
...An entity acting as a first party and contracting services of another party is responsible for the overall processing. A third party is an entity with no contractual relation to the Data Controller and no specific legitimacy or authorization in processing personal data. If the third party has own rights and privileges concerning the processing of the data collected by the first party, it...
19:53:09 [rvaneijk]
...isn't a data processor anymore and thus not covered by exemptions. This third party is then considered as a second data controller with all duties attached to that status. As the pretensions of users are based on law, they apply to first and third party alike unless the third party acts as a mere data processor."
19:53:11 [erikn]
rigo: this conclusion is only valid under a certain definition of service provider. If it is the EU "data processor" can only process data on behalf of the first party. In this case, it can't share.
19:53:40 [erikn]
… we don't have any data bleed then. Just an extension of a first party. Might be informational to distinguish, but then don't overload the header
19:53:40 [hober]
q?
19:53:46 [hober]
ack fielding
19:53:48 [aleecia]
ack fielding
19:53:55 [felten]
q+
19:54:14 [erikn]
fielding: agree with Rigo that his service provider definition agrees with that, in disagreement with felten's scenario
19:54:36 [erikn]
… like employees. I don't have a right to know which employees at Microsoft have access to my Microsoft data
19:54:44 [jmayer]
My three rationales for drawing the first-party vs. service provider distinction in response/well-known URI: 1) different sharing boundaries for information (users might care), 2) different use direction for information (users might care), 3) ability to check application of outsourcing exception (researchers/advocates/policymakers might care).
19:54:45 [npdoty]
it may be that we're not quite sure what "service provider" will ultimately mean
19:54:58 [hober]
ack dwainberg
19:55:12 [erikn]
dwainberg: Rigo and Roy made my points. This is a choice mechanism, not a transparency mechanism.
19:55:25 [erikn]
… there will be friction to small publishers and small companies more impacted
19:56:15 [erikn]
felten: go to a.com, redirecting me to sp.com, acting as a service provider to a.com. Data can be shared within a.com, but not within sp.com (I might have that backward). Point being where data can be shared is still impacted
19:56:28 [erikn]
fielding: this does not replace the privacy policy, which tells users these things
19:56:54 [erikn]
matthias: suggest we move this out of the header field
19:57:00 [erikn]
… can put that in the WKL
19:57:00 [felten]
Privacy policy doesn't tell me who is a first party vs. service provider in a specific interaction.
19:57:14 [erikn]
tl: objects
19:57:41 [erikn]
… if I can't tell if Amazon is a first party (Amazon) or a service provider, I don't know where my data can go. Without the s token, I can't distinguish this.
19:58:05 [erikn]
… these cases are manifoldly different, so we cannot remove this token and still have a user understand
19:58:19 [erikn]
matthias: let's try the reverse approach. who can't live with exposing this information?
19:58:29 [WileyS]
Aleecia, that makes sense. We need to first find a host and THEN we can announce the 8 week timeframe. Any chance we can go back to DG Info / EU Commission again to host us?
19:58:47 [Chesterj2]
we need time to sum up where we are, were we go.
19:58:53 [erikn]
fielding: there can be 20-30 service providers in a single response. can't put that in an "s"
19:58:56 [aleecia]
zakim, open the queue
19:58:56 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is open
19:59:02 [erikn]
felten: not talking about a.com using infrastructure from others
19:59:25 [erikn]
… if the UA sees a.com as where it's going, as opposed to being sent to a domain that's different
19:59:26 [aleecia]
We can have the EC host, but we can also go elsewhere if we can find a host
19:59:31 [erikn]
… can have infrastructure that's not visible to the UA
19:59:36 [npdoty]
I think felten is pointing out that you can't distinguish the service-provider relationship from the multiple-first-party example
19:59:45 [WileyS]
Yahoo's office in Brussels is tiny so I'm not helpful for Brussels.
19:59:50 [aleecia]
We fall back to EC if needed but - know anyone with an office building in Paris, Rome, Florence?
19:59:54 [jmayer]
+q
20:00:05 [erikn]
… this doesn't touch a lot of the service provider cases
20:00:13 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
20:00:24 [hwest]
…Isn't hidden infrastructure more of a problem than exposed service providers?
20:00:25 [erikn]
jmayer: this maybe needs much longer discussion.
20:00:38 [WileyS]
Aleecia, I believe our Barcelona office may be large enough, I'll check (est 70 people, fair?)
20:00:49 [aleecia]
q?
20:00:55 [felten]
Ed says X != FTC says X
20:01:02 [aleecia]
Lovely! Thank you!
20:01:15 [erikn]
fielding: there are many service providers in that chain. there are limitations on what you can share
20:01:24 [aleecia]
Estimate of 70 sounds right to me
20:01:26 [erikn]
tl: it doesn't appear you are communicating with them
20:02:21 [aleecia]
We clearly need to end the meeting so people can watch the game
20:02:32 [erikn]
… go to x.com. I use rackspace, but you don't know that. If you go to x.rackspace.com, if they send you a response that says "1" in the header, you don't know if it's x or rackspace. If it's rackspace, it can share that in themselves
20:02:46 [aleecia]
q?
20:02:52 [erikn]
… if they are a SP for me, they can't use it for their own malarky. Otherwise they can
20:02:55 [hwest]
Proposal: duke this out at some later date!
20:03:03 [erikn]
npdoty: or multiple on one page
20:03:23 [aleecia]
+1 heather
20:03:35 [erikn]
matthias: evilempire.com … with an s flag, you know it's okay, but with a 1 flag you should be afraid. Isn't this Tom's point?
20:03:45 [erikn]
fielding: go to the WKL and see who it is
20:03:51 [erikn]
tl: no
20:03:52 [sidstamm]
q+
20:03:58 [aleecia]
thank you sid
20:04:15 [erikn]
matthias: if they user has blacklisted evilempire, maybe only if it's itself and not acting as a service provider
20:04:31 [aleecia]
ack sidstamm
20:04:33 [erikn]
sidstamm: alternate rephrasing
20:05:10 [erikn]
… there are SPs who have multiple customers. If they silo, they are acting kind of like 1P. If they are acting like a 3P, they could be sharing
20:05:32 [erikn]
… in a SP context, would only share the data with the 1P acting on behalf of
20:05:44 [erikn]
matthias: seem to have strong support for the s flag
20:05:52 [erikn]
… so we'll create text for it in the next draft
20:06:33 [erikn]
tl: in the next modification of the rec, it will have s, and then we will reconfirm the consensus to the draft?
20:06:38 [erikn]
matthias: yes
20:06:41 [aleecia]
Agreed: adding s to next draft, will review text
20:07:48 [npdoty]
tl, it's not in the editor's draft right now
20:07:53 [erikn]
ACTION: Matthias to update text based on tl's proposal, due 6/29/2012
20:07:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Matthias
20:07:53 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mschunte2, mschunte)
20:08:09 [aleecia]
thank you Erik
20:08:11 [tl]
+q
20:08:26 [npdoty]
ACTION: mschunte2 to update text based on tl's proposal, due 6/29/2012
20:08:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-223 - Update text based on tl's proposal, due 6/29/2012 [on Matthias Schunter - due 2012-06-29].
20:09:19 [aleecia]
shane & tom agree
20:09:20 [erikn]
WileyS: why look for such a short response header and pressing very hard for brevity? The response content will far exceed the header.
20:09:27 [erikn]
matthias: reduce complexity as much as possible
20:09:44 [erikn]
… are all the tokens essential?
20:09:52 [erikn]
<tokens displayed on screen>
20:10:08 [dwainberg]
q+
20:10:22 [erikn]
fielding: meaning of tokens is to say the site is tracking, but only doing so for this particular exception or another
20:10:27 [erikn]
… not a list of all permitted uses
20:10:54 [erikn]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#status-response-value
20:10:55 [ifette]
Are we still making progress? or would this be a good place to break...
20:11:54 [ifette]
hober, by "break" i meant stop this subject, wrap up, and call it a day
20:12:00 [erikn]
npdoty: is this not 1:1 with permitted uses?
20:12:03 [erikn]
fielding: yes
20:12:04 [tl]
q?
20:12:05 [aleecia]
q?
20:12:16 [erikn]
matthias: intent is to explain
20:12:21 [felten]
1-1 with permitted uses, plus one more for prior consent
20:12:28 [ifette]
s/ifette:/ifette,/
20:12:41 [ifette]
s/ifette:/ifette,/
20:12:43 [aleecia]
ack tl
20:12:46 [hwest]
q+
20:12:48 [ifette]
s/ifette:/ifette,/
20:12:59 [erikn]
tl: almost all to line up with permitted uses. Will be slightly out of sync as we revise
20:13:06 [erikn]
… p is the exception to that.
20:13:18 [erikn]
… p is not a narrow use; not on the list of permitted uses
20:13:20 [jeffwilson]
q+
20:13:31 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
20:13:34 [erikn]
matthias: is this needed?
20:13:45 [felten]
How much do users and UAs care?
20:13:47 [erikn]
dwainberg: p is valuable. everything else adds complexity
20:13:58 [erikn]
… and doesn't provide a lot of value
20:14:15 [WileyS]
Tom, who would ever not implement all of them? Use case?
20:14:17 [aleecia]
ack hwest
20:14:18 [erikn]
… have to parse, understand the spec, make decisions. Easier for engineers than lawyers and others
20:14:25 [WileyS]
Or add an "all"
20:14:25 [erikn]
hwest: agree with dwainberg
20:14:33 [tl]
WileyS: I might.
20:14:37 [aleecia]
ack jeffwilson
20:14:42 [erikn]
… if we want this field, we should just have the permitted uses
20:14:47 [WileyS]
Build an entire spec on one web sites use?
20:14:53 [tl]
+q
20:15:04 [erikn]
matthias: assume that except for p that they are aligned with the permitted uses
20:15:10 [WileyS]
+q
20:15:16 [dwainberg]
q+
20:15:28 [aleecia]
(I asked him early, he is right)
20:15:29 [erikn]
jeffwilson: it seems like p needs to be a response code
20:15:35 [hwest]
hwest: there is no reason to add complexity with this
20:15:45 [aleecia]
(auto correct for the lose)
20:15:49 [erikn]
matthias: should there be a signal for prior consent?
20:15:54 [erikn]
group: yes
20:16:11 [hwest]
q+
20:16:13 [amyc]
+1 hwest
20:16:18 [aleecia]
ack tl
20:16:46 [erikn]
tl: if you think most people will use all the tokens, then they can be optional. None == all, but if you say some, you have to mean just that
20:16:56 [erikn]
… specifying that I do one and not others is a use case
20:16:58 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
20:16:59 [felten]
How much do users and UAs care about these tokens?
20:17:14 [aleecia]
How do we answer that yet?
20:17:18 [erikn]
matthias: do we want to communicate the different permitted uses?
20:17:29 [aleecia]
I'd suggest we implement this and see
20:17:34 [erikn]
… do we agree to spell them out?
20:17:38 [hwest]
I would phrase it as "I see no reason to add this complexity"
20:17:45 [sidstamm]
it would be nice for me as a user to know who is protecting me from fraud (for example)
20:17:45 [vinay_]
q+ meme
20:17:54 [erikn]
WileyS: agree there is little value, is weight and complexity
20:18:01 [erikn]
… shouldn't design for just a few sites
20:18:11 [aleecia]
q+
20:18:14 [tl]
+q
20:18:30 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
20:18:32 [erikn]
… for sites that want to show their DNT compliance is better, can specify that outside the standard
20:18:38 [hwest]
-q
20:18:54 [sidstamm]
q+
20:18:55 [erikn]
dwainberg: should leave it all out. Especially "L" (local constraints)
20:18:57 [aleecia]
ack meme
20:19:09 [erikn]
tl: happy to remove "L"
20:19:18 [erikn]
meme: for DNT, less is more if we want adoption
20:19:21 [tl]
-q
20:19:22 [tl]
+q
20:19:29 [erikn]
… we should offer "compliant" or "not compliant"
20:19:31 [aleecia]
ack aleecia
20:19:35 [erikn]
… otherwise it will be complex and not get used
20:19:54 [erikn]
aleecia: question to EU side. Does it matter for compliance if they specify or not?
20:20:00 [erikn]
group: no
20:20:02 [aleecia]
ack sidstamm
20:20:24 [rigo]
q+
20:20:32 [aleecia]
ack tl
20:20:34 [erikn]
sidstamm: we should think about people using UAs. This could be beneficial to them. I'd like to know what sites are protecting me from fraud. That would be kind of cool.
20:20:41 [WileyS]
Read their privacy policy or follow the "Pointer"
20:20:48 [WileyS]
Q+
20:20:50 [fielding]
q+
20:20:58 [aleecia]
ack rigo
20:21:36 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
20:21:41 [erikn]
rigo: has long said it is worth giving users this kind of information. But it's being shoehorned into the wrong tool.
20:21:42 [sidstamm]
q+
20:21:52 [aleecia]
has the web changed at all in 10 years?
20:22:06 [erikn]
WileyS: can we use the Pointer to provide these kinds of details? Optional and can individuate permitted uses there.
20:22:13 [aleecia]
ack fielding
20:22:26 [aleecia]
ack sidstamm
20:22:34 [tl]
+q
20:22:35 [erikn]
fielding: fine with not having these values. Was trying to cover all use cases, but if the group decides not sufficient, that's fine
20:22:38 [aleecia]
zakim close queue
20:22:58 [erikn]
sidstamm: there is value to users
20:23:02 [hober]
ack tl
20:23:12 [erikn]
tl: these can be in the tracking status resource, not in the header
20:23:37 [erikn]
matthias: we have consensus to remove the tokens except for p
20:23:54 [erikn]
tl: and make it optional in the status resource?
20:24:25 [erikn]
tl: does anyone object?
20:24:41 [aleecia]
AGREED: fields become part of optional URI
20:25:21 [fielding]
s/optional URI/optional member of tracking status resource/
20:25:28 [aleecia]
…except for p, which remains
20:25:36 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
20:26:04 [erikn]
aleecia: changing gears. next F2F
20:26:25 [erikn]
… practically, not worth meeting before Sept due to schedules
20:26:31 [erikn]
… looking for a host
20:26:42 [erikn]
… straw man compliance draft coming out soon, to be taken up in calls
20:26:52 [rigo]
I know that the European Commission is keen on hosting
20:26:55 [erikn]
… we made progress in this meeting
20:27:09 [erikn]
… thank you to everyone for your efforts, particularly Nick and Thomas
20:27:19 [erikn]
… a huge thank you to Rigo
20:27:29 [erikn]
… and also JC for coordination
20:27:37 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
20:27:42 [erikn]
JC: and to those who provided food (missed the list)
20:27:53 [erikn]
aleecia: and to Matthias for chairing this last session
20:28:10 [erikn]
npdoty: and thanks to Aleecia!
20:28:18 [robsherman]
robsherman has left #dnt
20:28:21 [hober]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
20:28:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-minutes.html hober
20:29:13 [adrianba]
adrianba has left #dnt
20:37:06 [fielding]
rrsagent, list attendees
20:37:06 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'list attendees', fielding. Try /msg RRSAgent help
20:37:32 [fielding]
zakim, who is here
20:37:32 [Zakim]
fielding, you need to end that query with '?'
20:37:53 [fielding]
zakim, who is here?
20:37:53 [Zakim]
sorry, fielding, I don't know what conference this is
20:40:41 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
20:42:04 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-dnt-actions.rdf :
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: aleecia to issue a call for objections on symmetry/minimum number of choices [1]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-dnt-irc#T21-16-22
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: rigo to send Nick photos from whiteboard to include in minutes [2]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-dnt-irc#T23-15-23
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: brooks to draft tentative agreement on financial reporting breakout discussion [3]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-dnt-irc#T23-17-17
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: fielding to change text around DNT "on"/"off"/ [4]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T16-16-32
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: doty to write up proposal on issue-112 that we do exceptions based on origin [5]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T16-36-38
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: fielding to add optional audit field array [6]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T17-31-36
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: schunter to write up tl/matthias sub-group agreement on exception approach [7]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T18-52-09
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mschunte2 to write up tl/matthias sub-group agreement on exception approach [8]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T18-52-28
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mayer to draft optional version of explicit/explicit exception api [9]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T19-01-31
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ifette to document out-of-band js api [10]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T19-18-55
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Matthias to update text based on tl's proposal, due 6/29/2012 [11]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T20-07-53
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mschunte2 to update text based on tl's proposal, due 6/29/2012 [12]
20:42:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-irc#T20-08-26
20:42:22 [npdoty]
trackbot, bye
20:42:22 [trackbot]
trackbot has left #dnt
20:42:28 [npdoty]
Zakim, bye
20:42:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt