W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-international@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Agenda: Global considerations F2F meeting 11-12 Berlin

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:41:36 +0100
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Cc: Haakon Bratsberg <haakonfb@opera.com>, public-tracking-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <2338169.9vaVxndP8c@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

On Monday 25 February 2013 15:13:40 David Wainberg wrote:
> I definitely do not understand the need to define DNT:0. Why is it not
> NOT  DNT:1?

in the US market, there is no restriction. The absence of DNT:1 means I 
can do whatever. 

in a regulated market like in France, there is a general prohibition of 
processing personal data unless you have a legal justification. In the 
absence of a DNT signal, you have certain restrictions. Receiving DNT:1 
just reinforces those restrictions. The restrictions may go even beyond 
what DNT:1 says, as local law will prevail. 

So if DNT:0 means the absence of DNT:1, sending DNT:0 has no meaning and 
thus the legal restrictions remain in place. So whether you are sending 
DNT:1 or DNT:0, you will always be in the mode with restrictions. 

If we define DNT:0 as "you can collect whatever you feel like" there is 
another legal limitation kicking in. This is like going into a shop and 
saying: "I buy". The sales person will ask "buy what"? And you'll 
stubbornly keep on saying "I buy". The "I buy" simple has no object. 

So we have to give more contour to the DNT:0. And there we have a second 
beneficial effect: At the current UK window shade consent like system 
for cookies, they have a long+large text that then points to a privacy 
policy with 22 pages of legalese. 

If we define DNT:0 to reflect the normal advertisement scenario, this 
will count as "knowledge" and a service doesn't have to declare 
everything again. You would only have to inform about the delta, about 
the things you do beyond what the definition of DNT:0 is. This makes 
DNT:0 very user friendly. We need a user friendly DNT:0 because we want 
to have very low barriers for getting to a DNT:0. Otherwise the system 
will create too high a burden to get to acceptance. 

This is very roughly why we need to define DNT:0. DNT:0 is good for the 
regulated market and good for those who want to let the user control 
certain aspects of their system. 

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 14:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:40:17 UTC