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

Re: Sitecom adds Do Not Track to its routers

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:43:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8f1Ck9MtCsFHH8SoDznyB_2qjj6izvujv071_f-pSvFNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
David, when you say compliant I assume you mean with respect to the overall
setting being representative of an explicit user choice? I'm not sure how
something with no provisions for exceptions, or consistency between header
and DOM values could be considered compliant...
On Dec 1, 2012 3:43 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 14:56 , Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org> wrote:
>
> As JC and i also confirmed this is an opt in device are you suggesting it
> would be non-compliant?
>
>
> My read of their product literature is that the device is intended for
> individual sale, so in that case, it's probably compliant.  It is someone
> being enabled to have single central control of DNT for all their devices
> on their own network.
>
> My read may be wrong, of course.
>
>
> As more sw and hw solutions come to market specially designed to block
> ads, enhance privacy or third party calls I believe the intent of the user
> will be met through the user's purchase. That said I would hope there is a
> user string detectable so the site can detect such usage and determine what
> content / services are made available
>
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#dnt-header-field
> ****
>
>
>
> “An HTTP intermediary must not add, delete, or modify the DNT header field
> in requests forwarded through that intermediary unless that intermediary
> has been specifically installed or configured to do so by the user making
> the requests. For example, an Internet Service Provider must not inject
> DNT: 1 on behalf of all of their users who have not expressed a preference.”
> ****
>
>
>
> If the router has a single point to configure the DNT header field for all
> outbound traffic, and the LAN it is in front of has more than one user
> making HTTP requests, then the Sitecom functionality is not compliant with
> the requirements on intermediaries as defined in section 4.2 of the TPE
> document.  ****
>
>
>
> /brendan.****
>
>
>
> *From:* JC Cannon [mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com <jccannon@microsoft.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:14 PM
> *To:* W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> *Subject:* Sitecom adds Do Not Track to its routers****
>
> ** **
>
> “The Do Not Track functionality is disabled by default, and requires the
> user to visit the router's configuration page to enable it. Sitecom has
> confirmed that, in addition to launching the software on third-generation
> X-Series routers, it will bring the Do Not Track option to existing devices
> with Sitecom Cloud Security through a free firmware update.”****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/11/29/sitecom-do-not-track/1***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> JC****
>
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2012 01:44:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC