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

On Apr 27, 2012, at 16:09 , Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * 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.

I think we are in rough agreement, however, "if the user sends the conflicting signals of an explicit permission, with a DNT:1, then the explicit permission overrides the DNT signal" seems correct to me.  It's not out of scope to resolve such conflicts and state what overrides what.


> -- 
> 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/ 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 08:54:38 UTC