W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Issue-17, Issue-51 First party obligations

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:42:57 -0800
Cc: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8C6EF04B-4DA1-46A9-9DBB-C20C12659BD4@gbiv.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:13 PM, John Simpson wrote:

> Roy,
> 
> Sorry, I don't follow you. Why is DNT orthogonal to private browsing?  I'm simply trying to state what my expectation is as a user if I enable DNT.  I intuitively expect to interact with a 1st Party for that transaction, but why would I expect the site to continue to use that information for anything in the future if I have enabled DNT?

Because DNT does not mean "do not track".  It means do not track me
across non-same-branded sites. If you have a user expectation that
differs from that, then we need to fix that expectation (not DNT).

The expectation you expressed above is already implemented in browsers
as private browsing mode.  We have no need to duplicate it in DNT
because it can be turned on in addition to DNT.  That is a user choice.

I, as an implementor, will not implement DNT if it has a significant
impact on analytics beyond sharing data with 3rd parties.
There is no implied right to privacy regarding data provided by
a user when they deliberately choose to enter an establishment,
which means the stuff we see in access logs, first-party cookies,
and contracted analytics providers that silo data per site
should not be impacted by DNT.  It may well be impacted by other
regulations, depending on context, but not by DNT.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 01:43:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:22 UTC