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

RE: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:55:30 -0800
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D06AA3379@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Rigo,

Could you please explain the context of why the UK ICO is requesting an "expression mechanism" in this regard?  If you're suggesting that DNT expressions serve as a persistent store for a user's opt-out choices available from most 3rd party OBA activities, then I completely agree (and believe this is the true value and goal of the working group).  But even in this context, the goal is to limit/halt "cross-site tracking".  Is there some other activity you're attempting to have this signal serve as an "expression"?  In the EU Data Protection Directive context, is there another use for 1st parties you're envisioning here?

Thank you,
Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:49 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; Ed Felten
Subject: Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

Dear Shane, 

we already talked to the UK ICO folks. And they are looking forward to get 
some help from us to help businesses to better cope with an expression 
mechanism. This is not about compliance to regulation, it is about an 
expression mechanism. And DNT is an expression mechanism. The fact that you 
are concentrated on the semantics of the expression don't mean that it can't 
be helpful in another (non-US) context. I just wanted to appeal to you that we 
shouldn't prevent a solution there only because of minimalistic improvements 
here..

So whether the scope of DNT is only for cross-site tracking doesn't mean that 
you do not express this preference to a first party.

Rigo


On Thursday 12 January 2012 14:39:34 Shane Wiley wrote:
> There are efforts underway to bring forward a better cookie mgmt standard to
> address the ePrivacy Directive (the UK ICO refers to these as "Browser
> Privacy Wizards").  I hope these efforts move swiftly here in early 2012
> and become more public so this group can see the ePrivacy Directive is
> being addressed in a far more elegant manner than attempts to levy DNT to
> address these concerns (and trigger the much laughed at outcome of endless
> pop-up dialogues for European web surfers).
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 22:59:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:23 UTC