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: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:31:12 +0000
Message-Id: <CC06207B.3C2F%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
You're now at the "intersection" of regulation and self-regulation. I really don't think you want the regulators to come in here. 

The core issue on the table is simple to state  is DNT:1 my intent. The devil is in the implementation and then the subsequent enforcement of that intent. The regulators will force that decision if self regulation (the Spec) fails.

So the argument against NOT solving the intent problem is very straightforward  Enforceable Regulation with real fines. And the ones that will be paying are the ones with the money. 


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:39 AM
To: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]
Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:40:30 +0000

> I still haven't heard arguments against my suggestion that UAs invite legal liability by sending the preference without user consent, which may be sufficient to deter secret injection of headers (but I may have missed in all the traffic).
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 08:10:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:31 UTC