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: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:53:43 +0000
To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBF29893.2A0D%peter.cranstone@3pmobile.com>
>> A server indicating they respect and have enabled the DNT spec (to Canadian or other users) would have the right
>> to ignore DNT-1 if deemed to have been set by UA default.

How would the server know? It all sees is either a 1, 0 or null value. It has no idea either who, what or where it came from?

>> In EU law, it requires a positive election prior to tracking by servers. whereas Canadian law does not currently
>> appear to require any positive election as a pre-requisite.

And therein lies the problem with DNT. It has to be location aware “IF” the user sends a No Preference value (Null). What if something injects a Null value after the user has made a DNT=1 setting. Because the protocol has no requirement to even echo back that it received a value let alone what the original value was the user is none the wiser. He/she just expects to Not Be Tracked or maybe tracked depending on where he is.

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 09:54:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:50 UTC