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

Re: Tracking Preference Expression Spec Suggestion

From: Andy K <akahl@evidon.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:40:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+TcBbXvnP3kQdpKj+EHW_i_ne60VK2yt6rbucsM23SSGF+hvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, "Colin O'Malley" <colin@evidon.com>
The latter, and if it's in there, I missed it... so I'd argue it isn't
anywhere nearly as precisely expressed as the former case, which is
discussed at length.

The concern is that the spec as written has focuses directly on the inital
act of a user's browser-wide, every-call decision. This is less likely (in
my estimation) to be enacted by a user than a  opt-out choice delivered at
the time of transaction. At the very least, the latter should be considered
as potentially beneficial, and I'd like to see the spec reflect directly
that in addition to DNT:1 excepted to DNT:0 in some cases, it is advisable
to build a mechanism for DNT:no prefrence excepted to DNT:1.

/ak

*Andy Kahl*
Senior Product Manager

c. 408.931.0573

andy@evidon.com

http://www.evidon.com

twitter: @evidon
facebook/EvidonInc



On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for the note. I'm not entirely sure I understand the suggestion: is
> the idea that the header mechanism could be used to send DNT:0 to certain
> sites (even when Do Not Track was not broadly enabled) to indicate consent
> for tracking? I believe that possibility is covered in part by "6.6
> Exceptions without a DNT header"
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#exceptions-when-not-enabled
>
> Or are you thinking of the opposite situation: that a user might not have
> expressed a general Do Not Track preference for all their web browsing, but
> still want to send DNT:1 in some situations? I believe that's also
> compatible with the current text of the specification, but maybe that isn't
> clear to readers (or perhaps others in the Working Group even disagree).
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Andy K wrote:
>
> Hello all - Andy Kahl, product manager with Evidon here. I've been
> following the progress of the Tracking Protection Expression specification
> closely, and let me thank the group from the start for the quality work
> you've done.
>
> I have a suggestion that relates to section 6 (working from the 2012-03-13
> working draft), titled Site-specific Exceptions. This section generally
> deals with the notion that the DNT preference has been enabled in a browser
> and an exception should be made - that is - DNT is set to 1 by policy but
> should be set to 0 in a specific case.
>
> However, there is no opposite exception discussed - that is - if no
> previous DNT preference has been expressed, but a user would like to send a
> DNT expression to a specific site/domain. I propose that this notion of DNT
> inclusion (rather than exception), available whether or not they've made
> prior user-agent policy decisions,  be captured in the document. This woud
> enable (and encourage) context-based solutions like the platform Evidon
> provides to adopt the DNT header along with current cookie-based opt-outs,
> without relying on the user to make a top-level browser configuration
> decision about DNT.
>
> It appears that many of the lower-level implementation questions around a
> concept like this are left to those who would execute (that is, the browser
> manufacturers), so I'll refrain from making those kinds of suggestions
> here. Please let me know if more detail along those lines is appropriate.
>
> Thanks again for your hard work, and in advance for your consideration.
>
> /ak
>
> *Andy Kahl*
> Senior Product Manager
> <image002.png>
> c. 408.931.0573
> andy@evidon.com
> http://www.evidon.com
> twitter: @evidon
> facebook/EvidonInc
>
>
>


image002.png
(image/png attachment: image002.png)

Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 12:41:25 UTC

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