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

consent

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:59:52 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Message-ID: <1386124.xIjuMpJRjZ@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Tamir, 

On Wednesday 06 June 2012 10:03:53 Tamir Israel wrote:
> I understood the objective of the spec is to 'express user
> preferences'  (this is not the same as consent, I get the
> impression we are conflating the two).

I changed the subject line, because this is a different topic. To 
help with the implementation of Art. 5.3 of the ePrivacy Directive, 
we intend DNT to be recognized as an expression of consent in the 
sense of 5.3. Rob has already issued requirements for that. 

The second question, mainly addressed by Jonathan is the question, 
whether a user agent can set defaults on DNT without asking the 
user. Some argue that this would not be an expression of will and 
thus the DNT signal received would be void. I personally e.g. do not 
agree with this opinion. 

For the regulated environments, the question is rather under which 
conditions the user will send a DNT;0 as the legal default in Europe 
is already similar to DNT;1 without any kind of signals on the wire 
needed.

So while we use the same signals, the effects on the environment of 
DNT;0 and DNT;1 are radically different in regulated and unregulated 
environments. If you receive a DNT;0, you don't need implicit 
consent anymore, you have explicit consent for tracking. That's at 
least the plan. There are still some hurdles, also because there is 
fear that there are collateral effects of a working consent 
expression system on the (only) unregulated market (left) that is 
subject to heated discussion here. 

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 15:00:24 UTC

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