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

Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice

From: Manu Mukerji <manu16m@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:41:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CANt+7cXO26+=MkZ-Q2VpUHEkjDWq_s+aTRveha0U_j2pXLycTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>
So there might be a happy medium...

I agree that we might need to add the User Intent field and the all User
Agents "Must" honor that.

This way it will enable folks like IE10 to enable DNT by default and yet
allow the end party to decide if they honor DNT without user intent.

The same will be aplicable when a software like AVG enables DNT

Companies can decide if they want to honor it without the intent signal.


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Couple of comments…
> The device cannot interpret – only the user can make the choice. The
> client simple acts as a proxy for the user.
> Currently there is no solution to the client being able to transmit that
> was there "intent". You could use something like this DNT:1,IY (Intent Yes)
> But now you're caught in another loop as vendors install this setting by
> default.
> The only sane way to solve this dilemma is to use the server and do
> something like -
>    - Sever sees DNT:1
>       - Accepts it as valid – business as usual
>    - Server sees DNT:1
>       - Sees is as INVALID, sends a message back to the user asking for
>       additional context
>       - Client responds, that was my intent, server sets a cookie –
>       business as usual
> The issue will hinge on the word – MAY vs. MUST.
> Currently the spec calls for a MAY response. Which is another way of
> saying, I don't care I'm not doing anything. Change the word to MUST and
> now all of a sudden you get a choice AND you get transparency.
> Something which everyone has agreed upon is a good thing.
> Peter
> ___________________________________
> Peter J. Cranstone
> 720.663.1752
> From: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:19 PM
> To: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
> Cc: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, 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 18:20:02 +0000
> *For those who send them:* There needs to be a *separate* process where
> the validity of any device's interpretation and conveyance of the user's
> intent is judged as being in compliance with the spec and in compliance
> with their messaging of that interpretation and conveyance to the user.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 18:42:25 UTC

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