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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:11:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5b567f01-5298-4f47-a9a1-19e4f2e81792@blur>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
What a publisher requires of their third parties is their decision.  If a  
third party claims compliance with this standard, they should honor DNT:1  
signals absent permission from the user to ignore.  That's the case  
regardless of whatever parameters the first party did or did not establish  
(though there could be separate legal liability if the third party violated  
a k with their publisher).  I believe first (or third, I guess) may refuse  
to provide service to users who don't grant permission to track, though not  
sure all adovcates agree with that proposition.

Sent via mobile, please excuse curtness and typos

-----Original message-----
From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Sent: Tue, Jun 19, 2012 16:56:05 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents  
[Tracking   Definitions and Compliance]

Hi Justin,

thanks for the clarification.

Being simple-minded ;-), I restricted my argument to first parties:

I believe that they need to make the business decision whether to accept
DNT or not (in collaboration with their third parties). I.e., it is
important to note that all third parties that receive DNT;1 must follow
our guidance unless they can meaningfully interact with an end-user.

E.g., a tracking pixel (once the first party decided to accept DNT;1)
has to comply while, e.g., a weather widget is also required to comply
but has the choice of stop serving weather or ask the user (in a
meaningful interaction) to grant an exception.

Do you agree?


On 19/06/2012 18:39, Justin Brookman wrote:
> I don't really disagree with any of this.  If businesses want to
> bombard DNT:1 users with requests to track all the time, far be it
> from me to stop them.  I just want to avoid a scenario where hundreds
> of third parties are making independent evaluations of user
> intent/user-agent compliance and disregarding DNT:1 headers while
> claiming compliance with the standard.  As you say, that would
> frustrate the purpose of the global DNT standard and undermine trust
> in this process.  But if publishers and third parties want to harass
> or limit DNT:1 users from obtaining content, I'm comfortable letting
> the market work that out.
> I'm also interested in hearing more practical ideas for ensuring user
> agent compliance with the notion that DNT:1 sho
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 17:11:45 UTC

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