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

Re: Examples of successful opt-in implementations

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:13:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8eCxArJ5KkLsH=tTTuwm4OK+rJ9GrEF7o7Rxnyf7ucrSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
If you mean "in perpetuity" gets changed to "until the user changes the
remembered preference via some options ui" I have no problem with at
change. But if I've adequately captured the ask for the rest of proposal,
e.g. Basically something that requires the user to click something
somewhere each time they visit a website for the first time, with no way to
say "stop bugging me about this crap, unbreak my Internet!" that would make
me shed tears of European origin :-)

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> On Thursday 14 June 2012 10:20:14 Ian Fette wrote:
> > The extent to which the user can say "remember" is unclear to me
> > in this proposal. Presumably the user can consent to the first
> > party in perpetuity, not clear to what extent they can consent to
> > third parties in perpetuity in this proposal.
>
> Ian,
>
> a smart way would be to say "until next time the user expresses a
> different opinion". This way a new signal allows to sustain a state
> or change it for subsequent requests, all prefs only stored client
> side. So the permission management would be client side and the
> client would have the responsibility to send the right headers after
> the decision is made until the user changes his mind.
>
> Would that be an option?
>
> Rigo
>
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 18:13:57 UTC

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