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

(unknown charset) SHOULD or MUST for responses to DNT;1?

From: (unknown charset) Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:45:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4F15A5AC.6000703@zurich.ibm.com>
To: (unknown charset) public-tracking@w3.org
You are right: This discussion has been misplaced.  ISSUES-51 and
ISSUE-81 are better (albeit not perfect) fits.

matthias


On 1/17/2012 1:04 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Matthias,
> 
> Did you intend to attach this to Issue 105?  Seems like that issue focuses on responses to requests on which there was no DNT: request, not when the server gets a DNT:1 request header.  Seems like this should perhaps be attached to Issue 51 or 81.  Sorry if I am missing something obvious.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter [mailto:mts@zurich.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 10:01 AM
> To: John Simpson
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-105: Response header without request header? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> I gave this another thought and I now had the impression that SHOULD may be sufficient. A wording like:
>   If a site receives a  DNT;1 request header,
>   then it SHOULD send a DNT response header.
> (header details defined elsewhere)
> 
> Reasoning:
> 1. In order to be compliant, a site needs to satisfy the compliance and DNT specs 2. A  site that is compliant with above wording honors a DNT=1 request
>    but may not send a corresponding acknowledgement (for whatever reason)
> 
> The result would be that a site sufficiently protects privacy (according to the compliance spec) while not advertising the fact.
> This will make users assume the worst (i.e., that DNT=1 was not honored).
> 
> While this is not optimal, it at least ensures that the site provides more privacy than promised which I believe to be OK from a privacy perspective.
> 
> A benefit of SHOULD is that sites could improve their data collection/retention/usage first to satisfy the compliance spec and then later do further upgrades to provide transparency/notice. An example would be a site that never stores anything while ignoring DNT.
> Similar to today's practice that privacy policies usually over-state the potential uses of the collected data.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> On 12/20/2011 9:58 PM, John Simpson wrote:
>> Agree that if request header is DNT=1, then a site MUST send a 
>> response header to be compliant.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 16:49:22 UTC

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