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

Re: The Rubber meets the Road - DNT compliance code

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:30:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dsnovVHXjp47aSJv3=bErRe-nSp91=A_7p28XcA=4Usg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Peter, all of DNT requires resources.

I don't get where you say there are legal consequences. If you tell the
user "I'm not honoring your DNT request because <X>" and you're clear about
your practices then you're not breaking any promises.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Peter Cranstone

> Ian,
> This is a case of win the battle on the forum but lose the war in the real
> world. It doesn't matter if it's neither hard or complex. The point is that
> it has to be done, tested and then updated and maintained. That requires
> resources – not something that everyone can afford to do.
> Secondly, lets flog the dead horse one more time on "who set the DNT
> flag". If I have to write code that cannot guarantee 100% accuracy when it
> comes to this privacy setting AND there are legal consequences of me
> getting said code wrong (i.e. fines or pissed off customers) then I'm not
> going to do it.
> We all know that per the spec that MSIE is not compliant because it sets
> the flag by default. But what admin in his right mind is going to reject
> it? If the server is DNT compliant then there is NO downside to MSIE
> setting the default.
> We're back to stupid browser wars again and pissing off the customer. Not
> a good thing.
> Peter
> ___________________________________
> Peter J. Cranstone
> 720.663.1752
> From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
> Reply-To: <ifette@google.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:22 AM
> To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
> Cc: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: The Rubber meets the Road - DNT compliance code
> Many websites already do this -- "serve this JS to this user agent". It is
> neither complex nor hard.
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Peter Cranstone <
> peter.cranstone@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> There's a lot of questions around a non-compliant UA sending a DNT
>> header. There's still no definition on the forum or the spec on what
>> constitutes a non compliant UA, or even who is going to maintain a
>> "blacklist" of those non-compliant UA's. Finally there's no description of
>> a message that should be sent back to the consumer indicating that he's
>> using a non-compliant UA.
>> So I'm posting a link today of what something might look like running on
>> a server. The reason this is in PHP is because there are lot of servers (in
>> the 10's of millions) that cannot suddenly start adding server side modules
>> that do the detection. So it will all have to be done via a script.
>> Think about this for a moment. In the real world server side admins are
>> going to have to add code to EVERY CGI script to do this. The performance
>> hit is going to be HUGE.
>> Here's the link: http://www.5o9mm.com/mod_dnt_test_1.php
>> We've blacklisted the following browsers:
>> HTTP_DNT_BLACKLISTED_USER_AGENT_1 = Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
>> Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0)
>> HTTP_DNT_BLACKLISTED_USER_AGENT_2 = Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0;
>> Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0)
>> HTTP_DNT_BLACKLISTED_USER_AGENT_3 = Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
>> Windows NT 6.0; Trident/5.0)
>> HTTP_DNT_BLACKLISTED_USER_AGENT_4 = Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0;
>> Windows NT 6.0; Trident/5.0)
>> HTTP_DNT_BLACKLISTED_USER_AGENT_5 = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0;
>> rv:8.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0.1
>> So every time someone hits the Web site we have to run a check. The
>> request time for this check on our server is:
>> REQUEST_TIME = 1339597469
>> For that single page. Now multiply that by every page on your Web site
>> that is scripted. Ouch.
>> Now here's where it gets really interesting. Let's say that I'm on the
>> blacklist. What does the server do? By rights it should abort the entire
>> request and send a 400 invalid request response back to the user.
>> So what the heck does the user do now?
>> If this spec is going to be Trusted and used it has to work in the real
>> world which is NOT 100% technical. They turn it on (or have it turned on
>> for them) and they expect magic. They don't expect to be told that there
>> browser is non-compliant and they can either go get another one or get
>> tracked.
>> Peter
>> ___________________________________
>> Peter J. Cranstone
>> 720.663.1752
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 15:31:22 UTC

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