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

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

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:00:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD96FE0.2090804@cippic.ca>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
To me this is the crux of the issue. Consent is not binary, and no one 
will pretend you need a user's expression so that you can *not* track 
them. But the spec currently treats these as the same. That does not 
reflect legal or practical realities.

On 6/13/2012 2:26 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
>> Two cases come to mind:
>>  1. If a UA sends a DNT:1 by default, AND this is truly the
>>     preference of the user, if the server fails to respond
>>     accordingly to DNT:1  then arguably compliance has not been
>>     achieved.
>>  2. If, conversely, a server honors a well formed DNT:1 set by a
>>     vendor or intermediary, absent such being the actual preference
>>     of the the user, again preference has not been honored and
>>     compliance not maintained.
> For the second case: I'm not aware of anything in draft specifications 
> that would make a server non-compliant if it treated a user that 
> hadn't expressed a DNT:1 preference as if it had. For example, we 
> don't have any requirements that a user who arrives with DNT:0 must be 
> tracked. You might confuse a user if you provide a very different 
> experience under DNT:1 and it was inserted by an intermediary 
> unbeknownst to the user, but I don't see any issues with compliance 
> with this group's specifications.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 05:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:51 UTC