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

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

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:53:17 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <1437049.5tuOnrq0x3@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Brooks, 

On Monday 04 June 2012 10:52:31 Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
> IMHO it sets a very dangerous precedent (no matter where you side
> on the desirability of high adoption of DNT: 1) to say 1) the
> specification is founded in reflecting preference and,
> simultaneously, 2) default settings can reflect this
> preference.  Isn't this argued very differently with respect to
> default browser settings implying consent for cookies in the EU?

Rob (Article 29 WP) suggested to have a selection screen at first 
startup. After all the noise about the defaults, can we assume that 
using a certain browser means sending DNT;1? Again, personally, I do 
not believe that you can solve the issue whether the server has to 
comply to some signal with client side obligations. I still think 
that any DNT signal (apart from those injected by third parties and 
where there is no exception mechanism possible and no user choice) 
is valid, but that a server MUST be able to decline a user's 
preference (e.g. coming with a DNT signal into a personalized 
service that requires login). Sending back NACK (in some form) is 
transparent. But this would mean that the brand "DNT" isn't 
necessarily meaning "privacy enhancing". A browser could react on 
the NACK and be privacy enhancing etc.. I think depending on which 
way we chose we'll get entirely different discussions

Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 13:53:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC