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

Re: ACTION-211 Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:32:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4FDA122D.9030206@cippic.ca>
To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
CC: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Hi Peter,

On 6/14/2012 9:58 AM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
> Is correct. The problem you have is that each time a user changes his/her
> settings you have to run through the whole logic again. Which means in
> essence you have to track the user to know when they changed the setting
> last.

What I meant was that if MSIE treats all users in accordance with that 
dialogue, a second DNT-1 response to a N-ACK will indubitably be a valid 
expression of user intent not to be tracked. If servers start bringing 
in external research into the assessment of facially valid signals, then 
I don't see how we can draw the line at 'the first signal is not a 
meaningful expression of user intent'.

> The issue you do have in your logic is item C) I'm generally OK with being
> tracked, please stop bothering me. I think it's redundant because the
> tracking choice is binary (1,0). However this is where the Null value
> comes in - so C could be c) I don't have a preference - but this then
> introduces another point of confusion. It means one thing in Europe (do
> not track) and another thing in the US (tracking allowed). So now you have
> to determine the users location before setting a cookie to meet the
> preference.

My a, b & c were merely symbolic and I'm not advocating those specific 
options, merely trying to demonstrate how an escalation could play out 
if we start ignoring valid-seeming signals. What I *did* have in mind 
for the toolbar to essentially direct the user to the DNT mechanism and 
make it easier for them to make a selection (I'm hearing from you this 
is not so easy : P). Requiring an election as part of the browser set up 
process would have similar effect.

You raise another interesting point -- what happens if someone actually 
*prefers* 'unset', leaving it to the whims of evolving domestic norms to 
decide what is best for them [assuming what 'domestic' means can be 
determined through coarse geo info : )]?
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 16:34:26 UTC

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