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

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

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:04:08 -0600
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBFD23FC.305A%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Yep. Read the spec. You¡¯re 100% correct ¡© the spec says that the browser
must not ship with a default turned on, and the user must be given a choice.
So Microsoft is wrong and the spec is right. Great ¡© and the person who gets
duped is the user. Sure everyone kept to the letter of spec but NOT the
spirit of the spec, because there is NO ¡°choice mechanism¡± when the browser
is installed. 

RE: Sending DNT:1 does not in anyway improve privacy.

Again I have to agree with you. But what it does do is A) Express a choice
and B) Sets an expectation.

And the last point is critical. Once I turn on ¡°Tell Web sites to Not Track¡±
I¡¯m expecting magic. I don¡¯t care one bit about 1st or 3rd parties or
anything else, what I expect is for it to all automagically happen on the
server and there should be no way for anyone to see what I¡¯ve been doing.

That¡¯s the expectation ¡© if the spec cannot meet that expectation in the
minds of the consumer then it fails. And consumers are not technical. It¡¯s
like saying what part of illegal don¡¯t you understand. Same thing applies to
tell Web sites not to track me.




Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date:  Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:12 PM
To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc:  W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

> On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
> 
>> And there in lies the challenge of defining a user choice.
>> 
>> Microsoft sets the choice of ©øDo Not Track©÷
>> 
>> Everyone else (Apple, Mozilla, Google, Opera, Yahoo) sets the choice to
>> ©øTracking allowed©÷. (In the absence of the user being notified that they can
>> indeed make a choice the default is to track).
> 
> Please read the specification.
> 
>> So there you have it, opt-in vs. opt-out. Can you imagine the user now has a
>> choice. They can download a browser that by default offers more privacy or
>> they can chose the alternative. The real surprise comes later when they (the
>> consumer) find out that it©ös all optional for the content provider.
> 
> Sending "DNT: 1" does not, in any way, improve privacy.
> It's sole purpose and action is to indicate a user preference.
> It is not a light switch.  It does not turn anything on or off.
> What it does is tell the server something useful: that this user
> has chosen the following preference.  That's all.
> 
> The default of whether tracking is enabled or not given the
> absence of a user's expressed preference is determined by
> things entirely outside the scope of the WG: regional laws,
> out-of-band consent mechanisms, user account settings, the
> full moon, and other things that we are not concerned with.
> 
> ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 23:04:47 UTC

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