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

Re: Action-157: Update logged-in consent proposal

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:09:39 +0200
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <og8mp71cpuoeakehvokvoijbigktpp18mb@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* David Singer wrote:
>On Apr 26, 2012, at 15:59 , Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Shane Wiley wrote:
>>> <Normative>
>>> 
>>> Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have received
>>> explicit, informed consent to do so.
>> 
>> That means "a user's DNT preference" does not apply to this situation.
>> I see no reason why this should be an "override" rather than a "n/a".
>
>Because the user is sending "DNT:1" and also "you have my consent"; 
>these are in conflict.  It's by no means not applicable to state which
>overrides which.

I am saying the above should be phrased like "If a site has received
explicit, informed consent to track, then the DNT specifications do
not apply to that situation". The above says "If a site has received
explicit, informed consent to track, then the DNT specifications do
apply, and they say you can do whatever you want, regardless of any
DNT signal". Let's say "tracking" is a form of "stalking". Would you
make a law against stalking that says "stalking is okay when people
freely agree to be stalked by their stalker"? I would say that would
not be "stalking", and, as such, it's confusing to put it that way.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 23:10:07 UTC

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