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

Re: ACTION-52: Propose specific text for ISSUE-35, ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57, ISSUE-58

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:40:25 -0800
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <847AAF94-D4A0-4973-B99B-53A57413D561@aleecia.com>
While I think I did reflect the call (thanks for confirming, Shane) an off-list question points out that there is a problem with this. I think what we wanted was

		• No DNT Signal / No Opt-Out:  Treat as no DNT signal

rather than "Treat as DNT:0"

Does this seem right?

	Aleecia


On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:24 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Thank you Aleecia!
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:14 PM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: ACTION-52: Propose specific text for ISSUE-35, ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57, ISSUE-58
>  
> I made minor modifications to Shane's text to avoid the opt-out language, and added a note that specific trumps general:
>  
> As a general principle, more specific settings override less specific settings.
> 
> No DNT Signal / No Opt-Out:  Treat as DNT:0
> DNT Signal / No Opt-Out:  Treat as DNT:1
> Opt-Out / No DNT Signal:  Treat as DNT:1
> Opt-Out / DNT Exception:  Treat as DNT:0 for that site; DNT exception is honored
> Please let me know if I did not reflect the discussion on the call.
>  
>             Aleecia
>  
> On Feb 12, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> 
> JC,
>  
> This was discussed on the call last week – not sure if you were on.
>  
> Yes – a user’s explicit consent to allow OBA (either out of bound or via DNT site-specific exceptions) overrides an opt-out cookie.  In all other cases, the opt-out cookie trumps.
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: JC Cannon [mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: Shane Wiley; Tracking Protection Working Group WG
> Subject: RE: ACTION-52: Propose specific text for ISSUE-35, ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57, ISSUE-58
>  
> Shane,
>  
> I’m not sure I understand what you have listed. If a user opts-out of OBA for ads.com and has a site specific exception for ads.com then the user can receive targeted ads? What if the user is sending DNT:0 and has opted-out? Can a user provide a general exemption for OBA?
>  
> Thanks,
> JC
> Twitter
>  
> From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:55 PM
> To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG
> Subject: ACTION-52: Propose specific text for ISSUE-35, ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57, ISSUE-58
>  
> Description:
> Propose specific text for ISSUE-35, ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57, ISSUE-58
>  
> <extracted from Yahoo’s “W3C Proposal – DAA DNT Hybrid” document presented at Princeton>
>  
> Honoring User Preferences
> As multiple systems may be setting, sending, and receiving DNT and/or Opt-Out signals at the same time, it’ll be important to ensure industry and web browser vendors are on the same page with respect to honoring user choices in circumstances where “mixed signals” may be received.
> o   No DNT Signal / No Opt-Out:  Browser / device is not opted-out
> 
> o   DNT Signal / No Opt-Out:  Browser/device is opted-out
> 
> o   Opt-Out / No DNT Signal:  Browser/device is opted-out
> 
> o   Opt-Out / DNT Exception:  Exception is honored (browser/device is not opted-out)
> 
>  
>  
> NOTE:  The above text will need to be modified to include the appropriate terminology as this is decided upon by the working group.  For example, DNT Exception would need to be replaced with “Site-Specific Exception/Exemption” depending on the outcome of that discussion.
>  
>  
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:40:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC