IRC log of dnt on 2012-09-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:28:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:28:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/05-dnt-irc
15:28:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:29:03 [aleecia_]
Zakim, this will be dnt
15:29:03 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia_; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 31 minutes
15:29:12 [aleecia_]
chair: aleecia
15:29:23 [aleecia_]
regrets+ jmayer, jchester
15:29:34 [aleecia_]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:30:14 [aleecia]
aleecia has joined #dnt
15:30:30 [aleecia]
Zakim, agenda?
15:30:31 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
15:30:51 [aleecia]
agenda+ Selection of scribe
15:31:02 [aleecia]
agenda+ Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
15:31:12 [aleecia]
agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified
15:31:30 [aleecia]
agenda+ Any questions on the following quick summary of where we are on issues we've been talking about
15:32:10 [aleecia]
agenda+ (a) ACTION-208 on Ian Fette: Draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148
15:32:20 [aleecia]
agenda+ (b) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119)
15:33:13 [aleecia]
agenda+ (c) Buried in this discussion (of "absolutely not tracking") was David Singer's attempt to define tracking
15:33:26 [aleecia]
agenda+ (d) Issue-148, What does DNT:0 mean?
15:33:43 [aleecia]
agenda+ (e) Issue-25, Possible exemption for research purposes
15:33:56 [aleecia]
agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:34:44 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
15:49:56 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:50:22 [npdoty]
Zakim, agenda?
15:50:22 [Zakim]
I see 10 items remaining on the agenda:
15:50:24 [Zakim]
1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia]
15:50:24 [Zakim]
2. Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from aleecia]
15:50:24 [Zakim]
3. Quick check that callers are identified [from aleecia]
15:50:24 [Zakim]
4. Any questions on the following quick summary of where we are on issues we've been talking about [from aleecia]
15:50:26 [Zakim]
5. (a) ACTION-208 on Ian Fette: Draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148 [from aleecia]
15:50:27 [Zakim]
6. (b) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119) [from aleecia]
15:50:29 [Zakim]
7. (c) Buried in this discussion (of "absolutely not tracking") was David Singer's attempt to define tracking [from aleecia]
15:50:32 [Zakim]
8. (d) Issue-148, What does DNT:0 mean? [from aleecia]
15:50:34 [Zakim]
9. (e) Issue-25, Possible exemption for research purposes [from aleecia]
15:50:36 [Zakim]
10. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia]
15:50:39 [aleecia]
Good morning, Nick
15:50:51 [aleecia]
Thanks! I believe we are set.
15:51:16 [aleecia]
thank you, thank you, thank you.
15:51:26 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:51:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.674.aaaa
15:51:43 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
15:51:46 [aleecia]
zakim, aaaa is aleecia
15:51:46 [Zakim]
+aleecia; got it
15:52:41 [Zakim]
+Rigo
15:53:19 [rigo]
zakim, who is here?
15:53:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo
15:53:30 [aleecia]
thanks!
15:53:36 [aleecia]
(I'm already muted :-)
15:53:58 [rigo]
muted chairs are an intrinsic contradiction
15:54:01 [BrendanIAB]
BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
15:54:14 [aleecia]
Call hasn't started...
15:54:25 [aleecia]
I'll hear enough of my own voice soon enough
15:54:38 [Zakim]
+??P30
15:54:48 [damiano]
damiano has joined #dnt
15:54:53 [BrendanIAB]
Zakim, ??P30 is probably BrendanIAB
15:54:53 [Zakim]
+BrendanIAB?; got it
15:55:19 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:55:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.258.aabb
15:55:47 [efelten]
Zakim, aabb is me
15:55:47 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
15:56:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.859.aacc
15:56:57 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
15:57:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, aacc is npdoty
15:57:04 [Zakim]
+npdoty; got it
15:57:22 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
15:57:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.358.aadd
15:58:00 [Zakim]
- +1.813.358.aadd
15:58:12 [damiano]
no
15:58:19 [damiano]
i'm trying to join with a google number
15:58:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.852.aaee
15:58:36 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:58:38 [fielding]
Zakim, aaee is fielding
15:58:38 [Zakim]
+fielding; got it
15:58:38 [cblouch]
cblouch has joined #dnt
15:58:42 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:58:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.801.aaff
15:59:03 [samsilberman]
samsilberman has joined #dnt
15:59:07 [dwainberg]
zakim, aaff is dwainberg
15:59:07 [Zakim]
+dwainberg; got it
15:59:26 [Zakim]
+[Mozilla]
15:59:28 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
15:59:28 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
15:59:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.265.aagg
15:59:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.358.aahh
15:59:36 [Zakim]
- +1.813.358.aahh
15:59:38 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
15:59:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.520.aaii
15:59:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.472.aajj
15:59:56 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
16:00:01 [Joanne]
Zakim, aaii is Joanne
16:00:01 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:00:01 [Zakim]
+Joanne; got it
16:00:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.269.aakk
16:00:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.501.aall
16:00:16 [Zakim]
+[Apple]
16:00:18 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:00:20 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:00:28 [cblouch]
zakim, aagg is cblouch
16:00:28 [Zakim]
+cblouch; got it
16:00:35 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
16:00:35 [samsilberman]
zakim, aajj is samsilberman
16:00:37 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:00:38 [Zakim]
+samsilberman; got it
16:00:43 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, npdoty, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, [Apple]
16:00:46 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:00:47 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:00:49 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:00:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.664.aamm
16:00:52 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:00:54 [damiano]
still trying to get an operator
16:00:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.981.aann
16:01:02 [tedleung]
zakim aamm is tedleung
16:01:12 [npdoty]
Zakim, aamm is tedleung
16:01:12 [Zakim]
+tedleung; got it
16:01:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.212.380.aaoo
16:01:20 [Zakim]
+Cyril_Concolato
16:01:29 [Chris_IAB]
just joined the call from 212
16:01:32 [tedleung]
i'm not hearing any audio
16:01:36 [laurengelman]
laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:01:39 [aleecia]
good morning. anyone care to volunteer to scribe?
16:01:43 [vincent]
zakim, Cyril_Concolato is vincent
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+vincent; got it
16:01:45 [justin_]
justin_ has joined #dnt
16:01:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.349.aapp
16:01:54 [Zakim]
-tedleung
16:02:01 [aleecia]
Ted, you should hear beeps as people join the group
16:02:01 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:02:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.934.aaqq
16:02:11 [vinay]
zakim, aaqq is vinay
16:02:17 [Zakim]
+vinay; got it
16:02:25 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:02:25 [aleecia]
That bodes not well
16:02:31 [Zakim]
+tedleung
16:02:37 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaoo is Chris_IAB
16:02:40 [Zakim]
+??P67
16:02:40 [tedleung]
ok i heard aleecia
16:02:42 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB; got it
16:02:49 [Zakim]
-npdoty
16:02:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.637.aarr
16:03:10 [Zakim]
+npdoty
16:03:11 [rigo]
zakim, pick a victim
16:03:11 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.202.637.aarr
16:03:13 [tedleung]
i can do it
16:03:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.744.aass
16:03:22 [justin_]
zakim, aarr is justin_
16:03:22 [Zakim]
+justin_; got it
16:03:23 [npdoty]
scribenick: tedleung
16:03:28 [Zakim]
+ +49.721.83.aatt
16:03:30 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:03:38 [aleecia]
agenda?
16:03:39 [dsriedel]
zakim, aatt is me
16:03:43 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
Zakim, aass is ChrisPedigoOPA
16:03:51 [tedleung]
review of overdue action items
16:03:54 [CraigSpiezle]
CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
16:03:56 [AN]
AN has joined #dnt
16:04:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.358.aauu
16:04:03 [Zakim]
+dsriedel; got it
16:04:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.827.aavv
16:04:07 [Zakim]
+ChrisPedigoOPA; got it
16:04:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.678.492.aaww
16:04:19 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:04:23 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:04:25 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
16:04:27 [Zakim]
+[Google]
16:04:41 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:04:43 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
16:04:49 [npdoty]
issue-65?
16:04:49 [trackbot]
ISSUE-65 -- How does logged in and logged out state work -- open
16:04:49 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/65
16:05:22 [tedleung]
justin thought there was general consensus - proposes closing
16:05:24 [schunter]
I am stuck in another meeting. Will be late.
16:05:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.346.aaxx
16:05:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.835.aayy
16:05:39 [tedleung]
er, pending review
16:05:50 [Marc]
Marc has joined #DNT
16:05:50 [tedleung]
action-196 to pending review
16:05:59 [Zakim]
+ +aazz
16:06:05 [tedleung]
action-248
16:06:12 [Marc]
Marc is 202 835-9810
16:06:28 [tedleung]
action-248 is a duplicate of action-241, npdoty to fix
16:06:29 [pedermagee]
pedermagee has joined #dnt
16:06:31 [justin_]
zakim, aayy is Marc
16:06:31 [Zakim]
+Marc; got it
16:07:06 [tedleung]
action-235 - awaiting review of text from people in group. extend by 1 week
16:07:45 [dsinger]
issue-84?
16:07:45 [trackbot]
ISSUE-84 -- Make DNT status available to JavaScript -- closed
16:07:45 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84
16:07:46 [adrianba]
zakim, mute me
16:07:48 [Zakim]
adrianba should now be muted
16:07:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.bbaa
16:08:04 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:08:21 [dsinger]
is anything left to be done, though? the status is now available to JS, both the general ones, and the site-specific ones, in today's text
16:08:54 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:09:03 [tedleung]
action-200 - ian - still looking for use cases to drive api designs
16:09:10 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
16:09:20 [fielding]
dsinger, could you take over action-226 ?
16:09:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.520.bbbb
16:09:56 [tedleung]
after dsinger's comment, propose to close action-200 with a note. dsinger to close
16:10:07 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
16:10:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.310.292.bbcc
16:10:28 [tedleung]
action-226 dsinger and fielding to resolve
16:10:32 [dsinger]
reading the long email behind the action now...
16:10:48 [johnsimpson]
zakim,310.292.bbcc is me
16:10:48 [Zakim]
sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '310.292.bbcc'
16:10:55 [tedleung]
missed the action number we are discussing
16:11:04 [johnsimpson]
zakim, bbcc is me
16:11:04 [Zakim]
+johnsimpson; got it
16:11:18 [npdoty]
action-229?
16:11:18 [trackbot]
ACTION-229 -- Chris Pedigo to draft crisp definition [of data append] -- due 2012-08-01 -- OPEN
16:11:18 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/229
16:11:57 [tedleung]
action-229 - ChrisPedigoOPA - draft text to the list and discussion proceeding, moving to pending review to work through boundaries of data append vs service provider
16:12:06 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:12:27 [tedleung]
schunter has 2 issues which are mostly internal; he is not on the call
16:12:37 [aleecia]
agenda?
16:12:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:12:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, [Apple], +1.609.981.aann,
16:13:00 [Zakim]
... Chris_IAB, vincent, +1.408.349.aapp, vinay, tedleung, ??P67, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), +1.813.358.aauu, +1.646.827.aavv, +1.678.492.aaww, adrianba
16:13:01 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:13:03 [Zakim]
... (muted), [Google], +1.202.346.aaxx, Marc, +aazz, +1.202.326.bbaa, +1.415.520.bbbb, johnsimpson
16:13:06 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:13:07 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:13:13 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: npdoty (91%)
16:13:16 [KevinT]
zakim, bbbb is KevinT
16:13:16 [Zakim]
+KevinT; got it
16:13:18 [tedleung]
= check for identified callers =
16:13:37 [npdoty]
Zakim, aavv is Matt_AppNexus
16:13:37 [Zakim]
+Matt_AppNexus; got it
16:13:40 [Zakim]
- +1.678.492.aaww
16:13:43 [tl]
zakim, aann is tl
16:13:43 [Zakim]
+tl; got it
16:13:43 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaww is Brooks
16:13:44 [Zakim]
sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aaww'
16:13:44 [laurengelman]
i am 415
16:13:48 [npdoty]
Zakim, aall is Lee
16:13:48 [Zakim]
+Lee; got it
16:13:57 [tl]
Zakim, it hurts me every time you forget my name.
16:13:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, tl
16:14:07 [tl]
And that's the saddest part =[
16:14:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.678.580.bbdd
16:14:31 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaxx is hwest
16:14:31 [Zakim]
+hwest; got it
16:14:38 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbaa is FTC
16:14:38 [Zakim]
+FTC; got it
16:14:44 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:14:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, +1.425.269.aakk, Lee, [Apple], tl, Chris_IAB, vincent,
16:14:46 [Zakim]
... +1.408.349.aapp, vinay, tedleung, ??P67, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), +1.813.358.aauu, Matt_AppNexus, adrianba (muted), [Google], hwest, Marc, +aazz, FTC,
16:14:46 [Zakim]
... KevinT, johnsimpson, +1.678.580.bbdd
16:14:46 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:14:46 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:14:58 [npdoty]
Zakim, aakk is sue
16:14:58 [Zakim]
+sue; got it
16:15:00 [Brooks]
678 580 - Brooks
16:15:01 [damiano]
i'm on the phone, google voice
16:15:02 [WileyS]
Zakim, aapp is WileyS
16:15:02 [Zakim]
+WileyS; got it
16:15:20 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbdd is Brooks
16:15:20 [Zakim]
+Brooks; got it
16:15:20 [laurengelman]
I might be the VOIP if not the 415
16:15:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??P67 is damiano
16:15:34 [Zakim]
+damiano; got it
16:15:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:15:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, sue, Lee, [Apple], tl, Chris_IAB, vincent, WileyS, vinay,
16:15:59 [Zakim]
... tedleung, damiano, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), +1.813.358.aauu, Matt_AppNexus, adrianba (muted), [Google], hwest, Marc, +aazz, FTC, KevinT, johnsimpson,
16:15:59 [Zakim]
... Brooks
16:15:59 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:15:59 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:16:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, drop aauu
16:16:33 [Zakim]
+1.813.358.aauu is being disconnected
16:16:34 [Zakim]
- +1.813.358.aauu
16:16:44 [damiano]
ok that was me :-(
16:17:02 [tedleung]
issue-148
16:17:09 [aleecia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0314.html
16:17:17 [aleecia]
Upon receiving a request with DNT:0, a site may assume the user has provided them with explicit consent to continue with data collection, retention, and use practices including but not limited to the placement and reading of cookies and personalization services. Additionally, restrictions placed on the collection, retention, and use of data by this recommendation shall not apply to any data received as part of a request with a DNT:0 signal.
16:17:23 [tedleung]
action-208?
16:17:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-208 -- Ian Fette to draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148 -- due 2012-06-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:17:23 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/208
16:17:24 [npdoty]
Zakim, damiano is really laurengelman
16:17:24 [Zakim]
+laurengelman; got it
16:17:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.358.bbee
16:17:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbee is damiano
16:17:34 [Zakim]
+damiano; got it
16:18:00 [aleecia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0421.html
16:18:12 [tedleung]
proposed addition in url above
16:18:21 [aleecia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0428.html
16:18:32 [tedleung]
rigo's proposed addition in url above
16:18:49 [aleecia]
Folks, as said, this shortcut only works in the US legal
16:18:49 [aleecia]
environment. The previous definition would have worked also for the
16:18:51 [aleecia]
EU as we need positive semantics there (allowance talk) because we
16:18:52 [aleecia]
have to open the legislative restrictions with a positive statement
16:18:52 [aleecia]
of the user attached to that DNT:0 token.
16:19:06 [fielding]
I agree with Rigo
16:19:10 [KJ]
KJ has joined #dnt
16:19:27 [dsinger]
q+ to ask whether using a legal term (whose definition varies by jurisdiction) of "explicit consent" is a good or bad idea?
16:19:36 [dsinger]
q-
16:19:43 [aleecia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0313.html
16:19:55 [tedleung]
counter proposal in url above
16:19:59 [aleecia]
When a user sends the DNT:0 signal they are expressing a preference for
16:19:59 [aleecia]
a personalised experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for
16:20:01 [aleecia]
data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the
16:20:02 [aleecia]
recipient of this signal. This recommendation places no restrictions on
16:20:02 [aleecia]
data from requests received with DNT:0.
16:20:21 [rigo]
I agree also with text from Tom
16:20:36 [rigo]
I can live with the pure text from Tom
16:20:47 [dsinger]
q+ to ask whether using a legal term (whose definition varies by jurisdiction) of "explicit consent" is a good or bad idea?
16:20:47 [rigo]
q+
16:20:57 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
16:20:57 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to ask whether using a legal term (whose definition varies by jurisdiction) of "explicit consent" is a good or bad idea?
16:21:05 [tedleung]
aleecia thinks the two texts are close together, authors of texts disagree
16:21:31 [WileyS]
Legal obligations will always trump the standard so don't get too hung up here
16:21:39 [rigo]
+1
16:22:26 [npdoty]
+1, if laws disagree, they won't be hung up by our text
16:22:44 [WileyS]
Speaking of "Global Considerations" document - where is that???
16:22:49 [tedleung]
seems useful to clarify DNT:0 / explicit consent / local jurisdictions
16:22:52 [aleecia]
q?
16:22:53 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:22:55 [aleecia]
ack rigo
16:22:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.215.286.bbff
16:23:00 [tl]
+! This text would never meet legal requirements it doesn't meet. We can still say that it's as explicit consent as we can communicate this way.
16:23:20 [susanisrael]
215286bbff is susanisrael
16:23:27 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbff is susanisrael
16:23:27 [Zakim]
+susanisrael; got it
16:23:30 [johnsimpson]
+1 to laws in respective jurisdictions trumping the standard
16:23:50 [tedleung]
rigo is against clarifying jurisdictions, prefers tl's text
16:23:55 [aleecia]
so we have: 1. need to make sure we don't say "explicit consent" in a legal threshold, just say we consider it consent. 2. add non-norm text of "check with your lawyer"
16:23:56 [ifette]
q+
16:23:58 [tl]
Was this my text?
16:24:02 [aleecia]
ack ifette
16:24:06 [rigo]
tl, :)
16:24:10 [fielding]
or just make it a requirement that sending DNT:0 is only allowed when the UA has explicit consent
16:24:13 [npdoty]
tl, this is your text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0313.html
16:24:15 [tl]
...it's been so long
16:24:29 [fielding]
q+
16:24:36 [aleecia]
ack fielding
16:24:41 [dwainberg]
q+
16:25:00 [rigo]
roy, purpose is "current" as in P3P
16:25:58 [npdoty]
is "personalized experience" enough of a purpose for EU contexts?
16:26:37 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
16:26:41 [tedleung]
fielding to propose some wordsmithing changes
16:27:07 [npdoty]
When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure and use by recipient of this signal for the purpose of a personalized experience.
16:27:21 [rigo]
+1
16:27:39 [tedleung]
dwainberg: this DNT:0 def is broader in a way than the def of DNT:1. This seems odd
16:27:52 [Zakim]
+ +44.186.573.bbgg
16:28:01 [tl]
Well, that doesn't really work.
16:28:07 [tedleung]
"shouldn't it just be the strict opposite of DNT:1"
16:28:08 [tl]
What if you need consent?
16:28:28 [rigo]
the EC function is different from "Not DNT:1"
16:28:31 [fielding]
I am quite certain that DNT:0 does not mean "I am not sending DNT:1"
16:28:31 [npdoty]
no header effectively doesn't say DNT:1
16:28:45 [dsinger]
actually, currently it means precisely "you have asked for, and got, an in-band exception from this user"
16:29:03 [tl]
DNT:0 is not just "not DNT:1"
16:29:07 [tl]
If a user wants to send "not DNT:1" then they can just not send any signal.
16:29:09 [rigo]
q?
16:29:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.985.bbhh
16:29:54 [Chris_IAB]
David, do you find the definition of DNT:0 too far reaching?
16:30:10 [BrendanIAB]
q+
16:30:26 [WileyS]
If DNT=1 meant "no personalized experience" then DNT=0 meaning "I want a personalized experience" makes sense. I agree with David that DNT=1 is ill-defined at this time, so its difficult to write text that is the exact opposite of the text for DNT=0
16:30:31 [aleecia]
q?
16:30:36 [Brooks]
q+
16:30:46 [tedleung]
aleecia want's to know if dwainberg is objecting or just finding the definition odd
16:30:58 [fielding]
proposal: When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing a preference for a personalized experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the recipient of this signal to provide a personalized experience for the user. This recommendation places no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0.
16:31:10 [Zakim]
+ +49.172.147.bbii
16:31:11 [tl]
This text has been around for a long time. It sounds like DW doesn't object. Let's move on
16:31:28 [BrendanIAB]
Scope: "The Working Group will produce Recommendation-track specifications for a simple machine-readable preference expression mechanism ("Do Not Track") and technologies for selectively allowing or blocking tracking elements."
16:31:33 [tl]
So long that *I forgot that I had written it*.
16:31:37 [dsinger]
to tl: 'explicitly' not DNT:1
16:31:41 [Chris_IAB]
is DNT:0 and explicit opt-in?
16:31:46 [rigo]
yes
16:31:50 [aleecia]
q?
16:31:58 [aleecia]
ack BrendanIAB
16:32:01 [Chris_IAB]
Rigo, yes to my question?
16:32:09 [rigo]
yes
16:32:34 [Chris_IAB]
Thanks Rigo
16:32:57 [aleecia]
ack Brooks
16:33:01 [tedleung]
"if DNT:0 means "not DNT:1", then we go to a 2 state system"
16:33:04 [npdoty]
BrendanIAB, the second part of that scope is referring to the Tracking Selection List deliverable (which we've decided not to continue with), but I agree that DNT:0 doesn't mean "not DNT:1" if we continue with our three-part state
16:33:34 [aleecia]
+1
16:33:45 [tedleung]
brooks doesn't think that DNT:0 would likely qualify as consent in the EU
16:34:26 [aleecia]
hears we need a non-norm section
16:34:36 [aleecia]
on "this may vary based on where you are"
16:34:40 [rigo]
q+
16:34:53 [aleecia]
ack rigo
16:34:56 [npdoty]
is this a +1 to the earlier comment that we would need to note that this doesn't guarantee certain jurisdictional support?
16:35:03 [aleecia]
I believe so
16:35:36 [marc]
marc has joined #dnt
16:35:40 [tedleung]
rigo refers brooks to presence of article 20 wp /cc robvaneijk
16:35:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.517.bbjj
16:35:58 [AnnaLong]
AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:36:26 [aleecia]
pointing people to the text is a fine idea
16:36:36 [tl]
Does anyone actually have an objection to this text, with a counter-proposal?
16:36:37 [ifette]
q+
16:36:50 [aleecia]
ack ifette
16:36:53 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:36:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, sue, Lee, [Apple], tl, Chris_IAB, vincent, WileyS, vinay,
16:36:56 [Zakim]
... tedleung, laurengelman, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), Matt_AppNexus, adrianba (muted), [Google], hwest, Marc, +aazz, FTC, KevinT, johnsimpson, Brooks,
16:36:56 [Zakim]
... damiano, susanisrael, +44.186.573.bbgg, +1.425.985.bbhh, +49.172.147.bbii, +1.919.517.bbjj
16:36:56 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:36:56 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:37:08 [kj_]
kj_ has joined #dnt
16:37:26 [Chris_IAB]
agree with Ian's perspective
16:37:30 [ksmith]
ksmith has joined #DNT
16:37:44 [rigo]
+1 to aleecia
16:37:48 [tedleung]
ifette "in a case, it's more likely that the text that the user actually saw will be preferred over any text in the spec"
16:37:53 [fielding]
When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing a preference for a personalized experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the recipient of this signal to provide a personalized experience for the user. This recommendation places no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0.
16:37:59 [npdoty]
any objections to fielding's new text?
16:38:13 [AnnaLong]
zakim, bbjj is AnnaLong
16:38:13 [Zakim]
+AnnaLong; got it
16:38:30 [tl]
I have no objection to Roy's new suggestion.
16:38:34 [Zakim]
+ +385221bbkk
16:38:46 [CraigSpiezle]
16:38:53 [Brooks]
it should be explicit consent for 3rd party
16:38:54 [dwainberg]
q+
16:38:56 [dsinger]
I am not sure that the last sentence is true? Can you pass data to agents that received DNT:1, for example?
16:38:58 [Brooks]
+
16:39:02 [npdoty]
+1 to Roy's
16:39:04 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
16:39:15 [tl]
Perhaps the entire document should have a rider with the statement "Check with your lawyer.".
16:39:22 [aleecia]
+1 to that
16:39:23 [tedleung]
propose to adopt roy's text, and add non-normative text to consult with your lawyer
16:39:24 [rigo]
+1 to Roy
16:39:26 [laurengelman]
+1
16:39:44 [npdoty]
we went beyond Not Do Not Track a long time ago, when we made this a three-part state
16:39:45 [ksmith]
zakim, bbkk is ksmith
16:39:45 [Zakim]
+ksmith; got it
16:39:54 [rigo]
I was arguing in favor of this since the workshop in Princeton
16:40:03 [WileyS]
DNT:0 indicates that a user does not seek the protections that DNT:1 offers.
16:40:05 [dsinger]
it was added to indicate an in-band exception
16:40:30 [dsinger]
I don't think we ever agreed to a tri-part state. Indeed, we have a poll open on that.
16:40:49 [Brooks]
?
16:40:50 [tedleung]
aleecia to step dwainberg through DNT:0 rationale
16:40:50 [WileyS]
dsigner - the poll is on the UA treatment, not on the tri-part state.
16:40:55 [aleecia]
q?
16:41:01 [npdoty]
dsinger, I thought we had agreement on DNT having three possible states, we have a poll open on whether UAs have to expose it
16:41:06 [Brooks]
+
16:41:09 [Brooks]
q+
16:41:12 [tl]
npdoty +1
16:41:30 [aleecia]
ack brooks
16:41:31 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:41:54 [johnsimpson]
David, isn't the poll over whether a browser MUST offer tri-part state?
16:41:58 [dsinger]
We never agreed that DNT:0 was a general preference, and that is the essence of the poll question. DNT:0 was introduced to satisfy the need for in-band exception signalling.
16:42:09 [rigo]
you also need it for first parties
16:42:15 [fielding]
the signal is sent to any party
16:42:27 [npdoty]
DNT:1 is not solely to third parties
16:42:35 [tedleung]
brooks - should this text be qualified to 3rd parties?
16:42:39 [tl]
No.
16:42:43 [fielding]
no
16:42:49 [npdoty]
here are the first party compliance requirements: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party-compliance
16:42:58 [Chris_IAB]
how would it related to 1st parties in the US?
16:43:03 [tedleung]
aleecia: no, DNT applies to 1st and 3rd parties, but has very few requirements for 1st parties, but there are requirements
16:43:14 [rigo]
Chris_IAB: it will give them permission
16:43:20 [tl]
These questions apply to all parties. The compliance requirements are different for different parties, and small for first parties, but everyone has requirements.
16:43:27 [dsinger]
q+ to suggest that the last sentence not make blanket statements, change to "This recommendation places little or no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0."
16:43:35 [aleecia]
q?
16:43:37 [justin_]
Yeah, that first party compliance requirements language isn't good. No one has proposed good language to achieve what we have general consensus on should happen.
16:43:39 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
16:43:39 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to suggest that the last sentence not make blanket statements, change to "This recommendation places little or no restrictions on data collected from requests
16:43:43 [Zakim]
... received with DNT:0."
16:44:06 [tl]
Disagree.
16:44:11 [justin_]
Why?
16:44:16 [rigo]
:)
16:44:28 [rigo]
Why? -> picture
16:44:34 [justin_]
If I get DNT:0, don't see a need for prohibitions on data pass.
16:44:58 [dwainberg]
q-
16:44:58 [npdoty]
I think dsinger's point is that when we have a user-granted exception now, users intentionally send DNT:0 to some but not others, and wouldn't want one third party to pass it to others that received DNT:1
16:45:02 [AnnaLong]
AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:45:35 [justin_]
I can't think of anything else in the spec that would put a limit on what DNT:0 recipients can do with data (outside of extra-standard requirements).
16:45:58 [tl]
I disagree with David's concern. It is my impression that DNT:0 is precisely to disclaim all restriction.
16:46:54 [Brooks]
To be more clear on my 1st party/3rd party stance - when I say no 1st party requirement I mean when no 3rd parties are involved - am I still missing something?
16:47:04 [tl]
We cannot just re-open decided issues a year after the fact
16:47:11 [fielding]
I think David's concern is covered by the purpose -- that's why EU requires consent for each purpose.
16:47:17 [rigo]
tl, I think it is just lawyerish disclaiming (no or little)
16:47:25 [npdoty]
Matt_AppNexus: don't think the distinction between 1st/3rd party is so clear, though I'm late to this discussion
16:47:27 [tedleung]
matt from app nexus - is concerned about changing balance of power between 1st and 3rd parties
16:47:31 [rigo]
which is not worth our time
16:47:41 [npdoty]
+1 to fielding, we could note that DNT:0 for an exception has a particular purpose
16:47:56 [tedleung]
also concerned about ambiguity that dsinger is trying to address
16:48:17 [rigo]
q+ to address the variety of purposes
16:48:35 [dsinger]
my concern is minor, that that sentence makes a blanket claim about the entire rest of the spec. I guess we can remember to re-visit the statement if it ever becomes true, but someone might think "I can stop reading if I get DNT:0", that's all. I hope we remember it's here, but we'd probably catch it in a final consistency check if it becomes untrue.
16:48:51 [Chris_IAB]
perhaps the spec should include a table, for each compliance provision, of how each provision applies to 1st parties, 3rd parties, and service providers -- to make it crystal clear
16:48:51 [dsinger]
s/becomes true/becomes false/ !!
16:49:31 [rigo]
q-
16:50:04 [justin_]
This
16:50:13 [tl]
aleecia +1
16:50:17 [tedleung]
aleecia - hearing newcomers not having complete understanding of what is currently in the spec.
16:50:19 [Chris_IAB]
Proposed Table in Spec: Compliance Provision | How it Applies to 1st Parties | How it Applies to 3rd Parties | How it Applies to Service Providers
16:50:37 [aleecia]
q?
16:50:42 [Chris_IAB]
Rigo, it was the gentleman from AppNexus
16:50:42 [npdoty]
rigo, that was Matt with App Nexus
16:50:45 [tl]
...Otherwise, it's endless September in here
16:50:57 [aleecia]
propose: add, including sharing data with others.
16:51:05 [rigo]
ok, ready to take a call with him and explain the concept
16:51:26 [fielding]
isn't that what "disclose" says?
16:51:28 [WileyS]
+q
16:51:31 [tedleung]
please mute if you are not speaking
16:51:33 [rigo]
we shouldn't let Aleecia make all those calls
16:51:34 [npdoty]
I agree that "disclose" is already present
16:51:39 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
16:51:51 [Chris_IAB]
+q
16:51:52 [tl]
+1 shane
16:52:00 [dsinger]
likes what Shane just said
16:52:00 [npdoty]
because we have a 3-part state?
16:52:11 [tl]
Shane + consent
16:52:18 [fielding]
Shane, that would be useless in EU
16:52:21 [Brooks]
that is still a 3 part state
16:52:23 [aleecia]
q?
16:52:50 [tl]
...except in Europe.
16:53:06 [dwainberg]
agree w/ Shane
16:53:14 [tedleung]
WileyS proposed DNT:0 = not DNT:1
16:53:16 [rigo]
q+
16:53:30 [fielding]
No, DNT:0 has nothing whatsoever in common with "unset"
16:54:05 [justin_]
I think I prefer fielding's language.
16:54:07 [WileyS]
Agree on the EU problem - that makes this harder. Hence my belief that we need more than one compliance standard.
16:54:17 [tedleung]
aleecia reiterates need for 3 part state
16:54:49 [Zakim]
-sue
16:54:57 [rigo]
+1 to adoption
16:54:59 [npdoty]
prefer fielding's language and three-part state
16:55:05 [tl]
We're agreeing with Roy's proposal? If so, yes!
16:55:09 [johnsimpson]
+1 to adopt
16:55:10 [rigo]
yes
16:55:29 [tl]
"Check with your lawyer."
16:55:33 [tl]
There, done.
16:55:34 [tedleung]
resolution: adopt fielding's text and add non-normative "check with your lawyer" text
16:55:34 [aleecia]
AGREED: we adopt Roy's text
16:55:34 [Zakim]
+sue
16:55:42 [dsinger]
"this protocol does not define what consititutes explicit consent in any jurisdiction; check with your lawyer"
16:55:53 [npdoty]
action: rigo to draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0
16:55:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-250 - Draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 [on Rigo Wenning - due 2012-09-12].
16:56:11 [Brooks]
q+
16:56:13 [tl]
All hail dsinger.
16:56:17 [tedleung]
rigo just supplied text for action-250
16:56:26 [aleecia]
ack Chris_IAB
16:56:26 [johnsimpson]
q?
16:56:44 [rigo]
q-
16:57:39 [tedleung]
Chris_IAB proposes that new proposals explicitly call out how they apply to 1st, 3rd parties and service providers.
16:58:19 [rigo]
WileyS, we should perhaps have a call so that I explain you where the purpose identification is. The purpose identification lies in fact in the context of the request because we assume the user knows what she does
16:58:22 [Zakim]
-[Google]
16:58:51 [aleecia]
q?
16:58:57 [aleecia]
ack Brooks
16:59:22 [Zakim]
-samsilberman
16:59:24 [tl]
It is meant to.
16:59:43 [WileyS]
Rigo, agree with this wrinkle and why you'd push for DNT=0 equallying explicit consent.
16:59:46 [tl]
We do think that. That is the point.
17:00:18 [tl]
DNT:0 is there to provide explicit consent. That is a decided issue, and not elegible to be reopened.
17:00:19 [fielding]
The explicit consent comes when the user makes the configuration to send DNT:0
17:00:26 [aleecia]
Rigo speaking
17:00:32 [WileyS]
Yes, you can - because you're agreeing to a practice not to a specific party
17:00:41 [Zakim]
-sue
17:00:44 [WileyS]
+q
17:00:53 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:00:54 [fielding]
I think what Brooks is mentioning is informed consent, not explicit consent
17:01:01 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:01:13 [tedleung]
Brooks still have an issue with explicit consent
17:01:27 [npdoty]
in some cases it will be to a particular party, like when you've granted a user-granted exception
17:01:43 [npdoty]
or I might configure a list to send DNT:0 to parties I know and trust
17:01:48 [tedleung]
WileyS it's not explicit consent between parties, but explicit consent to a practice
17:02:05 [npdoty]
s/WileyS it's/WileyS: it's/
17:02:27 [Chris_IAB]
interesting if DNT:0 = "implicit consent", then it would have to be set by the user, right? Then shouldn't DNT:1 also have the same, user-set, requirement? (vs. default on)
17:02:37 [fielding]
I honestly don't think that will be a problem in the EU given that the EU commissioner explicitly asked for it as a solution to popups at every site.
17:02:50 [Chris_IAB]
for example, if there were a UA that set DNT:0 by default, would everyone be ok with that?
17:03:02 [hwest]
I can do it
17:03:09 [dsinger]
yes, Roy's text uses the words "explicit consent" which is a term of art used in legislation, which is the concern; we just need a note that we haven't tried to make this protocol satisfy every jurisdiction's definition of explicit consent
17:03:16 [npdoty]
action-250: "this protocol does not define what consititutes explicit consent in any jurisdiction; check with your lawyer"
17:03:16 [trackbot]
ACTION-250 Draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 notes added
17:03:16 [tedleung]
hwest to add text to the compliance doc
17:03:20 [npdoty]
close action-250
17:03:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-250 Draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 closed
17:03:22 [aleecia]
agenda?
17:03:42 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:03:53 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (68%), susanisrael (28%)
17:03:54 [tedleung]
issue-119?
17:03:54 [trackbot]
ISSUE-119 -- Specify "absolutely not tracking" -- open
17:03:54 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/119
17:03:59 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
17:04:00 [aleecia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0362.html
17:04:08 [npdoty]
action: west to add DNT:0 definition and non-normative text to Compliance
17:04:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-251 - Add DNT:0 definition and non-normative text to Compliance [on Heather West - due 2012-09-12].
17:04:21 [aleecia]
A party may claim that it is not tracking, if it
17:04:21 [aleecia]
1) only collects identifying data which is strictly necessary to answer
17:04:23 [aleecia]
the user's HTTP request and to fulfil it's contractual obligation
17:04:24 [aleecia]
towards the user
17:04:26 [aleecia]
2) does not send, collect or check for unique identifiers
17:04:27 [aleecia]
3) does not correlate the data of a DNT HTTP request with any other data
17:04:27 [aleecia]
4) deletes the identifying data as soon as the original purpose is fulfilled
17:05:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.684.bbll
17:05:17 [tl]
Whose text it this?
17:05:19 [jmayer]
Zakim, bbll is jmayer
17:05:19 [Zakim]
+jmayer; got it
17:05:28 [npdoty]
tl, this is from Ninja
17:05:39 [npdoty]
q+
17:05:39 [tl]
Has it been on the list?
17:05:42 [npdoty]
q-
17:05:44 [tedleung]
this is the DuckDuckGo scenario
17:05:50 [tl]
Aah, right.
17:06:01 [tl]
This seems weak to me.
17:06:14 [aleecia]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0403.html
17:06:32 [aleecia]
A party may claim that it is not tracking if
17:06:33 [aleecia]
1) the party does not retain data from requests in a form
17:06:34 [aleecia]
that might identify a user except as necessary to fulfill that
17:06:36 [aleecia]
user's intention (e.g., credit card billing data is necessary
17:06:37 [aleecia]
if the user is making a purchase) or for the limited purposes
17:06:39 [aleecia]
of access security, fraud prevention, or audit controls;
17:06:40 [aleecia]
2) when user-identifying data is retained for purposes other
17:06:42 [aleecia]
than to fulfill the user's intention, the party maintains
17:06:43 [aleecia]
strict confidentiality of that data and only retains
17:06:45 [aleecia]
that data for a limited duration that is no longer than is
17:06:46 [aleecia]
necessary to accomplish that purpose, thereafter destroying
17:06:48 [aleecia]
or otherwise clearing the user-identifying data; and,
17:06:48 [WileyS]
This seems narrow to me - while this may not be tracking there are many other activities (such as Permitted Uses) that would not be considered tracking either.
17:06:49 [aleecia]
3) the party does not combine or correlate collected
17:06:51 [aleecia]
user-identifying data with any other data obtained from prior
17:06:52 [aleecia]
requests, user-identifying profiles, or data obtained from
17:06:54 [aleecia]
third parties unless specifically directed to do so by the user
17:06:55 [aleecia]
(e.g., when a user initiates a login request) or for the limited
17:06:57 [aleecia]
purposes of inspection for access security, fraud prevention,
17:06:59 [aleecia]
or audit controls.
17:07:05 [rigo]
tl, fun is that ixquick who has a privacy seal from ULD is not fulfilling those requirements...
17:07:19 [WileyS]
That comment was for Ninja's proposal
17:07:23 [tl]
I do not think that Roy's text meets the goal for this text.
17:07:38 [npdoty]
I think we could have a definition that uses existing language around permitted uses
17:07:41 [Zakim]
-Lee
17:07:59 [npdoty]
like, "absolutely not tracking" is "only the security and short-term logging permitted uses"
17:08:05 [Zakim]
-dsriedel
17:08:15 [suegl]
suegl has joined #dnt
17:08:16 [aleecia]
q?
17:08:16 [npdoty]
q+
17:08:18 [dwainberg]
q+
17:08:23 [aleecia]
ack npdoty
17:08:54 [tedleung]
npdoty: can we reformulate this in terms of permitted uses?
17:08:58 [WileyS]
Nick, doesn't feel appropriate to create a gradiant outcome (not tracking vs. absolutely not tracking)
17:09:07 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
17:09:07 [fielding]
tl, I don't think it was intended to match the goal of Ninja's text
17:09:47 [npdoty]
npdoty: propose using existing terminology around permitted uses rather than inventing new phrasing
17:09:59 [tedleung]
dwainberg: why is this phrased as not "Tracking" since we are avoiding the word tracking
17:10:05 [npdoty]
... like a definition "does not use any permitted uses except for security and short-term"
17:10:32 [dsinger]
q+ wonders if we can roll this into the next question "when its practices fall strictly outside the definition of tracking given in the scope of this specification"
17:10:37 [WileyS]
If you define something as 'not tracking', then anything else 'is tracking'?
17:10:46 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
q+
17:10:46 [fielding]
TSV = "N"
17:10:47 [tedleung]
dwainberg: this seems problematic, we should drop it
17:10:58 [rigo]
we could call those "Privacy Champions" :)
17:11:09 [rigo]
short of PC
17:11:11 [npdoty]
+1 to fielding, refer to the specific signal rather than a term for us to fight over
17:11:18 [dsinger]
q+ to wonder if we can roll this into the next question "when its practices fall strictly outside the definition of tracking given in the scope of this specification"
17:11:49 [dwainberg]
apart from the name it's still a problem
17:11:59 [fielding]
I mean, that is the name ;-)
17:12:01 [KevinT1]
KevinT1 has joined #dnt
17:12:05 [Chris_IAB]
in trying to find consensus, it's proven very difficult (likely impossible) to fulfill regional requirements (legal, regulatory and other requirements) for a DNT header mechanism. So how about we concentrate on the technical spec in this group, then bifurcate the compliance spec into multiple documents, that are regionally focused to solve regional issues?
17:12:19 [aleecia]
q?
17:12:24 [Chris_IAB]
otherwise, aren't we trying to boil the ocean here?
17:12:26 [aleecia]
ack ChrisPedigoOPA
17:12:30 [fielding]
or, "no personal data retained"
17:13:28 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
17:13:30 [tedleung]
ChrisPedigoOPA: concerned about both texts, would prefer npdoty's approach, going to create legal liability for small entities
17:13:39 [tl]
+q to explain what this is for.
17:13:50 [rigo]
I think Chris is hung up by transforming a positive statement into a negative one
17:13:58 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:13:58 [Zakim]
tl, you wanted to explain what this is for.
17:14:05 [aleecia]
+1 Rigo
17:14:17 [npdoty]
it would be requirements for those who choose to explicitly state an additional level, which would of course be optional
17:14:34 [aleecia]
Optional and likely rare
17:14:58 [tedleung]
tl: this is for websites that want to go way over and above on privacy - likely to be few of these; not aimed at "normal" websites
17:15:19 [dwainberg]
Let's just have a
17:15:24 [aleecia]
"really totally not tracking" doesn't work for me :-)
17:15:32 [dwainberg]
... "+" response that says "we go beyond DNT."
17:15:39 [fielding]
A for anonymous?
17:15:44 [rigo]
total privacy
17:15:45 [aleecia]
That's what this is, David
17:15:46 [dwainberg]
and then let companies explain what they mean elsewhere.
17:15:54 [rigo]
+1 to fielding
17:15:55 [Chris_IAB]
Tom, aren't you saying then, in essence, that a 3-state system doesn't serve all?
17:15:55 [dwainberg]
But we shouldn't try to define it.
17:16:16 [WileyS]
Disagree with this approach - go start up a separate company/privacy seal and sell this there. Not needed in this standard.
17:16:23 [aleecia]
q?
17:16:23 [npdoty]
we currently have TSV = "N"?
17:16:26 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
17:16:26 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to wonder if we can roll this into the next question "when its practices fall strictly outside the definition of tracking given in the scope of this
17:16:29 [Zakim]
... specification"
17:16:44 [rigo]
q+
17:17:22 [tedleung]
dsinger: by listing out the things that a super privacy site won't do, we're indirectly defining tracking
17:17:39 [WileyS]
We're now considering yet another state? You're either DNT compliant or DNT SUPER compliant?
17:17:58 [aleecia]
q?
17:18:01 [aleecia]
ack rigo
17:18:04 [dwainberg]
and then we'll need super-duper extra compliant.
17:18:07 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
Shane, agreed. In an effort to create a super-privacy level, it seems that we create liability for sites that don't track
17:18:23 [aleecia]
Why do you think there's liability here?
17:18:27 [tl]
ChrisPedigoOPA: What liability?
17:18:29 [npdoty]
WileyS, the TSV currently has 6 listed values, we are discussing one of them here
17:18:54 [WileyS]
If a company is not SUPER compliant and only compliant, I definitely see liability.
17:19:00 [aleecia]
The few companies on the planet that do this will be happy. The rest of companies will ignore this.
17:19:13 [Chris_IAB]
does "tracking" mean "serving customized and personalized content"?
17:19:13 [WileyS]
We're taking an already overly complex structure and making it more complex - argh.
17:19:17 [tl]
WileyS: Why? They aren't doing something they haven't promised to do?
17:19:28 [dwainberg]
q+
17:19:39 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
my site wants to say that I don't need the exceptions in the standard and my site doesn't share data with anyone, so I don't track. But, now this new language adds another layer of complexity and liability
17:19:48 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
17:20:00 [WileyS]
Aleecia - I disagree and feel that's short sighted. Scope creep will create the temptation for advocates to try to push all companies to "Super Compliance".
17:20:10 [Zakim]
-Marc
17:20:13 [fielding]
WileyS, the TSV is a claim by the server of what the server does -- it does not say anything more than what the server wants to say.
17:20:21 [tedleung]
dwainberg: there are 2 issues. 1) is there a way for servers to say that DNT doesn't apply 2) should we define what that means
17:20:22 [WileyS]
Aleecia - also, if its only a few companies, let them go and do their own thing and not burden this standard.
17:20:41 [Chapell]
For entities that want the gold star, they are certainly free to indicate that "they go beyond the requirements of DNT because of X, Y, Z..
17:20:41 [dwainberg]
That would not address my concerns.
17:20:53 [Chapell]
So why do we need to add this to the spac
17:20:55 [Zakim]
-jmayer
17:20:57 [Chapell]
spec?
17:21:08 [tedleung]
aleecia: dont' want to create the impression that companies that implement DNT are bad at privacy
17:21:10 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
Example - only collects identifying data which is strictly necessary to answer the user's HTTP request and to fulfill it's contractual obligation towards the user. How do you define "strictly necessary"???
17:21:11 [npdoty]
ChrisPedigoOPA, I think what we're talking about is a way to say that you're not using the permitted uses
17:21:19 [Chris_IAB]
"DNT" should not be synonymous with "privacy" (that's conflating)
17:21:25 [Zakim]
+jmayer
17:21:26 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
how do you define "contractual obligations"??
17:21:36 [tedleung]
suggest adding non-normative text that says this will only apply to a small number companies
17:22:02 [WileyS]
If its in the standard then it applies to the world
17:22:15 [rigo]
ChrisPedigoOPA, strike "contractual obligations" and the definition is fine
17:22:21 [fielding]
q+
17:22:28 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
what is strictly necessary?
17:22:35 [tedleung]
aleecia: likes npdoty's proposal to reframe in terms of permitted uses
17:22:46 [aleecia]
ack fielding
17:23:05 [Zakim]
-[Mozilla]
17:23:07 [rigo]
+1 to Roy's suggestion
17:23:08 [tl]
+1 fielding
17:23:09 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has left #dnt
17:23:13 [aleecia]
-1
17:23:17 [tedleung]
fielding: can we change TSV=N to TSV=A in the TPE?
17:23:17 [tl]
I'm totally okay with "anonymous"
17:23:33 [aleecia]
I'm concerned that anon means more than this is
17:23:34 [tl]
Neither is accurate, but one causes fewer complaints...
17:24:02 [Brooks]
couldn't you have a credentialed access - non anonymous, but not log anything - not tracking?
17:24:09 [WileyS]
+1 to Anonymous over "Not Tracking" but agree with Aleecia this will have different definitions to many
17:24:19 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
17:24:21 [npdoty]
action: doty to propose defining formerly-known-as absolutely-not-tracking via permitted uses
17:24:21 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-252 - Propose defining formerly-known-as absolutely-not-tracking via permitted uses [on Nick Doty - due 2012-09-12].
17:24:56 [npdoty]
action: wainberg to propose dropping any tracking status value for None/Anonymous
17:24:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-253 - Propose dropping any tracking status value for None/Anonymous [on David Wainberg - due 2012-09-12].
17:25:34 [WileyS]
Could you name one of those companies in our Membership?
17:26:01 [Chris_IAB]
do we need something included in the spec for only a few companies?
17:26:05 [Brooks]
I don't think anonymous works
17:26:09 [npdoty]
aleecia: for the small number of companies, not for general use, could clarify that in non-normative text
17:26:39 [WileyS]
By small number - are we suggesting 2 or 3 companies in the world?
17:27:13 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:27:16 [aleecia]
q?
17:27:57 [johnsimpson]
agree with david
17:27:57 [Zakim]
-dwainberg
17:27:59 [Zakim]
-ChrisPedigoOPA
17:28:03 [Zakim]
-hwest
17:28:03 [WileyS]
Shane asks Rigo and DSinger to name those few companies
17:28:04 [Zakim]
-FTC
17:28:05 [Zakim]
-Joanne
17:28:06 [Zakim]
-BrendanIAB?
17:28:06 [Zakim]
-KevinT
17:28:06 [Zakim]
-efelten
17:28:07 [Zakim]
-justin_
17:28:07 [Zakim]
-laurengelman
17:28:09 [Zakim]
-Matt_AppNexus
17:28:09 [efelten]
efelten has left #dnt
17:28:11 [Zakim]
-Brooks
17:28:13 [Zakim]
-vincent
17:28:15 [Zakim]
-damiano
17:28:17 [Zakim]
-vinay
17:28:19 [Zakim]
-aleecia
17:28:22 [Zakim]
-tl
17:28:24 [Zakim]
- +44.186.573.bbgg
17:28:25 [Zakim]
-tedleung
17:28:28 [Zakim]
- +1.425.985.bbhh
17:28:30 [Zakim]
-[Apple]
17:28:31 [Zakim]
-fielding
17:28:33 [Zakim]
-johnsimpson
17:28:35 [Zakim]
-cblouch
17:28:35 [rigo]
WileyS: Matthias intended this for Universities that just provide some content on the web and have few logs
17:28:37 [Zakim]
-Chris_IAB
17:28:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:28:39 [Zakim]
-WileyS
17:28:42 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.674.aaaa, aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, +1.609.258.aabb, efelten, +1.510.859.aacc, npdoty, +1.813.358.aadd, +1.714.852.aaee, fielding,
17:28:44 [Zakim]
... +1.646.801.aaff, dwainberg, sidstamm, +1.703.265.aagg, +1.813.358.aahh, +1.415.520.aaii, +1.781.472.aajj, Joanne, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, dsinger, cblouch,
17:28:47 [Zakim]
... samsilberman, +1.206.664.aamm, +1.609.981.aann, tedleung, +1.212.380.aaoo, vincent, +1.408.349.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, vinay, Chris_IAB, +1.202.637.aarr, +1.202.744.aass,
17:28:51 [Zakim]
... justin_, +49.721.83.aatt, +1.813.358.aauu, dsriedel, +1.646.827.aavv, ChrisPedigoOPA, +1.678.492.aaww, [Google], adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, +1.202.835.aayy, +aazz, Marc,
17:28:53 [Zakim]
... +1.202.326.bbaa, +1.415.520.bbbb, +1.310.292.bbcc, johnsimpson, KevinT, Matt_AppNexus, tl, Lee, +1.678.580.bbdd, hwest, FTC, sue, WileyS, Brooks, laurengelman, +1.813.358.bbee,
17:28:56 [Zakim]
... damiano, +1.215.286.bbff, susanisrael, +44.186.573.bbgg, +1.425.985.bbhh, +49.172.147.bbii, +1.919.517.bbjj, AnnaLong, +385221bbkk, ksmith, +1.202.684.bbll, jmayer
17:28:58 [rigo]
it turned into the "super privacy" feature, which is now hurting us
17:29:00 [Zakim]
- +49.172.147.bbii
17:29:00 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:29:06 [Zakim]
-Rigo
17:29:07 [WileyS]
Then they can simply reply they are respecting DNT - why do they need to say something different? What value does it buy?
17:29:09 [Zakim]
-jmayer
17:29:10 [Zakim]
-AnnaLong
17:29:16 [Zakim]
- +aazz
17:29:17 [Zakim]
-susanisrael
17:29:23 [Zakim]
-adrianba
17:29:28 [rigo]
it was about simplification
17:29:37 [WileyS]
Creating a graduated compliance spectrum is bad for anyone other than those at the top of the spectrum
17:29:49 [rigo]
you do not need to read the entire spec. If you fulfill this, send that
17:29:49 [WileyS]
Expect formal objections on this one
17:29:55 [rigo]
:)
17:30:02 [rigo]
I may even side with you ...
17:30:08 [WileyS]
LOL
17:30:18 [WileyS]
Okay - running to next meeting. Have a great week Rigo!
17:30:32 [rigo]
rigo has left #dnt
17:31:16 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:31:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/05-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:31:38 [KevinT1]
KevinT1 has left #dnt
17:39:12 [tl]
XFGKbSFyarzV
17:41:17 [tedleung]
tedleung has left #dnt
17:42:07 [tl]
npdoty: I am passing secret codes, you may safely ignore me.
17:44:10 [Zakim]
-ksmith
17:45:18 [ksmith]
ksmith has left #DNT
17:49:10 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, npdoty, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
17:49:12 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:49:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.408.674.aaaa, aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, +1.609.258.aabb, efelten, +1.510.859.aacc, npdoty, +1.813.358.aadd, +1.714.852.aaee, fielding, +1.646.801.aaff,
17:49:12 [Zakim]
... dwainberg, sidstamm, +1.703.265.aagg, +1.813.358.aahh, +1.415.520.aaii, +1.781.472.aajj, Joanne, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, dsinger, cblouch, samsilberman,
17:49:14 [Zakim]
... +1.206.664.aamm, +1.609.981.aann, tedleung, +1.212.380.aaoo, vincent, +1.408.349.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, vinay, Chris_IAB, +1.202.637.aarr, +1.202.744.aass, justin_,
17:49:16 [Zakim]
... +49.721.83.aatt, +1.813.358.aauu, dsriedel, +1.646.827.aavv, ChrisPedigoOPA, +1.678.492.aaww, [Google], adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, +1.202.835.aayy, +aazz, Marc,
17:49:20 [Zakim]
... +1.202.326.bbaa, +1.415.520.bbbb, +1.310.292.bbcc, johnsimpson, KevinT, Matt_AppNexus, tl, Lee, +1.678.580.bbdd, hwest, FTC, sue, WileyS, Brooks, laurengelman, +1.813.358.bbee,
17:49:23 [Zakim]
... damiano, +1.215.286.bbff, susanisrael, +44.186.573.bbgg, +1.425.985.bbhh, +49.172.147.bbii, +1.919.517.bbjj, AnnaLong, +385221bbkk, ksmith, +1.202.684.bbll, jmayer
18:14:20 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt
19:00:11 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt