Agreed! There's no philosophical blocker. In a universe in which DNT was uniformly treated, and uniformly opt-in, without substantial variations in status between demographies, I would have absolutely no problem with equating the two. As a user, I until very recently assumed DNT == DNC.
Unfortunately we do not live in that universe. If we want to transition to it, relying on DNT will not allow us to strike a balance between research and privacy that doesn't totally tank one of the two. On 14 January 2015 at 17:39, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: >>it'squite clear from both the public and private discussions around DNT >>that there is a big detachment between user expectations of DNT and >>what the protocol actually does, and so we should probably avoid >>treating that protocol as a flag. > > On a less technical amore philosophical note I think that there is nothing > preventing is from taking a strong stand and saying "do not track" equals > "do not collect". > > The EFF on this topic: > > "Intuitively, users who we've talked to want Do Not Track to provide > meaningful limits on collection and retention of data. From the user's > perspective, sending the DNT browser signal to websites should indicate: > don't keep any records of my information, and collect the bare minimum > amount of information required to provide me with the service that you are > offering." > > Excellent graphical representation of the user expectations vs what is going > on at the w3 standards group: > https://www.eff.org/files/images_insert/dnt_chart_0.jpg > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And, IE11? 12? My point is that yes, we can go about writing a lot of >> exceptions for specific use cases, and coming up with solutions for >> each browser's DNT idiosyncracies, but the costs of that trade-off >> increase the more we have to support. >> >> I'd much rather we built a uniform system that asked users to >> explicitly opt-out, and made clear what they were opting out of: it's >> quite clear from both the public and private discussions around DNT >> that there is a big detachment between user expectations of DNT and >> what the protocol actually does, and so we should probably avoid >> treating that protocol as a flag. >> >> On 14 January 2015 at 13:45, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>For example, not collecting usage data about certain sections of our >> >> population (e.g. IE10 users where DNT is set by default) >means that we >> >> don't know if our software works for them. This isn't free, and in the >> >> long-term, it can have substantial negative >effects. If DNT was >> >> always >> >> disabled by default in major browsers, I would expect such biases to be >> >> minimal. >> > IE faulty support, downright wrong support or no support of many of the >> > web >> > apis is no news to anyone doing web development in the last 10 years and >> > nothing to write your mom about, really. >> > >> > IE is treated it specially in many areas and we might do so in this one >> > too >> > if it turns out that: >> > >> > - No service pack install has corrected the DNT default (sounds like no, >> > this did not happen) >> > >> > - IE10 traffic is significant. I will get those numbers as I checked >> > browsers stats more than 6 months ago and things might have >> > changed significantly. Last time I checked I *believe* (going from >> > memory) >> > we had quite a bit less traffic from ie10 than ie8. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Nuria >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Aaron Halfaker >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Ori, I don't think you addressed the point I made about that study. >> >> They >> >> didn't ask users what they thought *their* browser setting meant and >> >> what >> >> they expected. They asked what they thought a big red button with "DO >> >> NOT >> >> TRACK" on it meant -- and the most common answer had to do with their >> >> local >> >> browser history! >> >> >> >> Regardless, I think you make a good point. The cost of getting >> >> something >> >> wrong here may not be symmetrical, but it's not clear to me that erring >> >> on >> >> collecting absolutely no data is less costly. >> >> >> >> For example, not collecting usage data about certain sections of our >> >> population (e.g. IE10 users where DNT is set by default) means that we >> >> don't >> >> know if our software works for them. This isn't free, and in the >> >> long-term, >> >> it can have substantial negative effects. If DNT was always disabled >> >> by >> >> default in major browsers, I would expect such biases to be minimal. >> >> >> >> Also, I think that if a user sets DNT and expects it to do something it >> >> isn't supposed to do, we can always point them to the spec. It's a >> >> sad >> >> fact that, if you want to remain private on the web, you're going to >> >> need to >> >> inform yourself about how such things work. Just because we adopt an >> >> extreme/overly-simplistic doesn't mean that the people you really don't >> >> want >> >> to have your behavioral data will to -- but it certainly has the >> >> potential >> >> to make research & product's job much more difficult. >> >> >> >> Really, what I'm trying to say is that if I "decline to collect data >> >> about >> >> [you]", you shouldn't say, "meh". You should be concerned about how >> >> we're >> >> not considering what works and does not work for people like you when >> >> we >> >> design, test and deploy software changes. In a way, it's like taking >> >> away >> >> your vote. And if you don't believe that, I'd like to suggest that the >> >> only >> >> alternative is that the work that I do does not bring value to our >> >> users -- >> >> and I'd beg to differ. >> >> >> >> -Aaron >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Aaron Halfaker >> >>> <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> They're really only asking what people think of when they read the >> >>>> words >> >>>> "Do Not Track". I'd be more interested in knowing what people expect >> >>>> when >> >>>> then look at their particular browser setting and what it is they >> >>>> actually >> >>>> hope it will accomplish. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> While it's true that there is ambiguity about what users are objecting >> >>> to >> >>> when they turn on DNT (3rd party tracking? behavioral tracking? all >> >>> data >> >>> collection?), the costs of getting it wrong not symmetrical. If I >> >>> object to >> >>> all forms of data collection, and you collect data about me anyway, >> >>> I'd be >> >>> pretty upset. But if I'm OK with certain forms of data collection, and >> >>> you >> >>> decline to collect data about me.. meh. >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Analytics mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Analytics mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Analytics mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Oliver Keyes >> Research Analyst >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Analytics mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
