RE: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

UA = User Agent

For example, if the final Tracking Preference Standard requires that users explicitly set their own preference in the UA, then a simple UA list can be developed for non-compliant UAs.  When a publisher receives a DNT header request from a non-compliant UA, the Well Known URI/Response Header can let the user know that their preference will not be honored from this UA and can direct them to compliant UAs they can use where their preferences will be honored.

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: David Singer; Kevin Smith; ifette@google.com; Lauren Gelman; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

How would you "know" a US is noncompliant?

On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:


David,

I disagree.  If you know that an UA is non-compliant, it should be fair to NOT honor the DNT signal from that non-compliant UA and message this back to the user in the well-known URI or Response Header.  Further, we can provide information for the user to use a UA that is DNT compliant if they wish for their preference to be honored in that regard.

- Shane

From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:17 PM
To: Kevin Smith
Cc: ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>; Lauren Gelman; Shane Wiley; Justin Brookman; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]


On Jun 1, 2012, at 13:53 , Kevin Smith wrote:



A better question would be, does a compliant entity have to respect a signal sent from a non-compliant entity.

I guess you can choose to be non-compliant to the protocol and try to plead that you because you believe the other end was non-compliant first, but second-guessing the other end will probably not be part of the protocol and therefore probably will not make you compliant.

Even if we define that GP UAs cannot have it on by default, how would you tell the difference between a user that wanted it on, and a user who had not thought about it?  To be compliant, you have to respect the first user's desires.

Note that I am not agreeing with (or discussing) whether general-purpose UAs should turn it on by default, only whether servers have any business trying to second guess "gee, did he really really MEAN that or can I ignore it, I wonder?". The answer can only be 'no, I think. You have other mechanisms to criticize incorrect implementations than ignoring what they say.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.


----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>