W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2012

Re: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:48:10 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Message-ID: <3038955.3iK8fTuxUK@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Shane, 

On Sunday 01 April 2012 20:54:12 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I disagree with your basic premise here: '"Out-of-band" is creating the
> trouble, because it imports troubles from outside in our definition space
> and we have to decide in how far we accept that (see below).'

You can't have the cake and eat it too. 

Either you take some rule from outside (out of band is superior of what we 
define here) and you accept that the discussion about quality of out of band 
agreements for DNT compliance is in scope for our Group. 

Or you say, those out of band agreements have some legal value outside DNT and 
we do not discuss it here but manage the semantic clash in our legal 
department. In this case you may well say that because you have out of band 
agreement, you break DNT compliance without legal consequences.

Or we create some rules under which out of band is taken into account by DNT 
while still maintaining DNT compliance. That needs definition of some 
requirements for out-of-band agreement as accepted for compliance with the 
_Specification_.

But what we should not accept is allowing services to say "we do DNT" while 
basically ignoring DNT-rules because of an undefined out of band agreement. 
This is so prone to abuse that DNT would become meaningless IMHO. 

Best, 

Rigo
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 14:48:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:27 UTC