- From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:52:38 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Brett Error <brett@adobe.com>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I brought the idea up during early discussions about having multiple DNT values, (don't track, don't target, DNT for non-trusted sites), but there were concerns that the complexity would confuse consumers or multiple values would water down DNT. I feel consumers should always have choice when it comes to their privacy and it is up to industry to make controls easy to find, use and understand. JC -----Original Message----- From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karl Dubost Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:45 PM To: Brett Error Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; Aleecia M. McDonald; public-tracking@w3.org Subject: Re: ISSUE-5: What is the definition of tracking? Le 12 oct. 2011 à 21:02, Brett Error a écrit : > The urge to define "tracking" stems from the concern that "do not track" sounds like it will forbid all tracking. Part of the issue comes from the binary choice "DO/DO NOT" when most privacy issues are not related to binary choices but to fuzzy logic. So maybe the question is not about tracking or not tracking but about the specific actions which are allowed in the context of a header, preference, etc. -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 18:53:07 UTC