RE: ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?

Roy,

It's the last case that you've provided that caused considerable concern amongst the group - such that it was felt a proactive defense statement was appropriate (again, bad actors will act badly no matter what we say, but this does provide a bedrock from which to attack their actions as "bad").  The draft statements we've developed also call out the possible conflict with the consumer driven site specific exception process.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:14 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: ISSUE-95: May an institution or network provider set a tracking preference for a user?

On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> I would suggest we only add this comment to the Compliance document as many who are reading that document will not be very familiar with the broader array of W3C standards such as HTTP.  Are you comfortable with that path?

I don't understand why we would want the compliance document (which defines
how service-providing organizations should behave in light of DNT) to
say anything about this topic, let alone contradict the TPE spec.

Can you explain what the use case is for this issue?  I was a bit burned
out by the time it was discussed in Santa Clara and haven't been able
to find an explanation of why network intermediaries would ever need to
modify DNT unless they were specifically installed or configured by the
user to do so.

At best, the proposal would introduce errors in managing opt-back-in.
At worst, it allows ISPs to extort money from advertising networks.

....Roy

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 16:27:21 UTC