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

Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

From: <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:28:47 +0000
To: ifette@google.com, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Ninja Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3qv9ez.m5er02.1hge15w-qmf@gna.phonk.net>
 Tamir, 

the Canadian situation could be remedied by requiring a certain level of conformance. But a service could still refuse access in case of opt out, because the service requires processing of personal information. This could even be done with a HTTP error code

--
Sent from my Nokia N9On 10/06/2012 02:33 Tamir Israel wrote:
Hi Ian,

On 6/9/2012 12:49 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: 


I'm not sure I follow you. Surely, Canadian users can use the Internet today without hitting this legal dilemma. If DNT is not available as a negotiation mechanism, either because the site doesn't support it at all or chooses not to support it for a given set of user agents, then you are in the same situation that you are in today. Whatever mechanism are in place today are not going to cease to exist with the rollout of DNT. So, I would presume you would solve this situation the same way you solve it today. 
I don't know why you would assume this. It's largely a complaints-driven regime. I imagine people have been holding back on complaints only because they are waiting for this W3C process to resolve itself.


  
I agree it's worth understanding what it would take to address them and try to do so if it's at zero to no cost, however lately it seems like it has become the primary focus and adding great complications, as opposed to an add-on to be done if it's straightforward. 
Well, I don't think we should ignore the fact that this entire W3C process would not be happening at all if online advertisers did not have regulatory problems because they lacked effective mechanisms for meeting user expectations. I had understood the W3C process in terms of attempting to find ways to address these regulatory challenges. I'm not convinced this can only come at 'zero cost'.

Speaking more generally, the work of Internet standards bodies in solving problems such as this should be informed, at least, by legal norms. 


  
Best regards,
Tamir 
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 15:34:21 UTC

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