- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:57 -0600
- To: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CC07640D.3D88%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
>> "A third party must obtain explicit, informed consent to obtain a user-granted exception to track despite the DNT:1 header"? How does the 3rd party know whether or not the UA was invalid? Which sets up the loopŠ * Client sends DNT:1 * Server decides that DNT:1 is invalid * Server MAY respond > * Which now hoses the 3rd party Because you will now need to add: * Server decides DNT is invalid * Server MUST send a message to the 3rd party saying "Track away" User sees his privacy is being abused and sues the content provider. He says he sent a DNT flag server guy says "I saw it but I ignored it". Client says WTH, why didn't you give me a Choice on what do next. Sever responds because I was not required to. Client says bye. Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 From: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:23 AM To: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:24:18 +0000 > > Thank you for this helpful clarification. > > The requirements for consent to turn DNT on is: " A User Agent must obtain > explicit, informed consent to turn on the DNT header " Can I assume that > your proposal would require the same formulation for the granting of a > user-granted exception: "A third party must obtain explicit, informed consent > to obtain a user-granted exception to track despite the DNT:1 header"? > > Justin Brookman > Director, Consumer Privacy > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > tel 202.407.8812 > fax 202.637.0969 > justin@cdt.orghttp://www.cdt.org > @CenDemTech > @JustinBrookman > > On 6/20/2012 12:57 PM, Shane Wiley wrote: >> >> >> >> One editorial mistake discovered (there will probably be others). In the >> ³Explicit and Separate User Choice² section, 4c should read: >> >> >> >> ³Servers that respond to all DNT requests as non-compliant regardless of User >> Agent details ARE NOT compliant with this recommendation.² >> >> >> >> - Shane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Shane Wiley >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:03 AM >> To: public-tracking@w3.org >> Subject: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice >> >> >> >> >> >> TPWG, >> >> >> >> Please find attached the detailed proposal text we¹ll be reviewing tomorrow >> afternoon (built upon the proposal outline I provided last week). >> >> >> >> The following individuals, companies, and trade associations contributed to >> this proposal: >> >> >> >> Marc Groman & David Wainberg NAI >> >> Alan Chapell Chapell & Associates >> >> Heather West, Sean Harvey, & Ian Fette Google >> >> Shane Wiley Yahoo! >> >> >> >> There is considerable detail covering numerous topics in this proposal and >> therefore it should not be consider an endorsement by all contributors to all >> parts of this proposal. That said, all contributors generally agree with the >> direction and approach of this document. >> >> >> >> We look forward to further discussion and fielding questions tomorrow >> afternoon. >> >> >> Thank you, >> Shane >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 17:34:38 UTC