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: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:55:39 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <2143228.jgKIX5tgEm@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Tamir, 

DNT is a communication channel, not a privacy law. If a country 
wants to prohibit services from refusing a DNT:1 header, they have 
to create the appropriate rule that coerces the service into a 
certain behavior. W3C does not have the status to create such 
coercive rules. 

Ian Fette already said: Do you want to know whether they ignore you 
or be left in the fog? 

There are multiple ways to react on a refusal to service DNT:1. One 
being to fake the UA string. My browser has even a per-site 
configuration to circumvent site designs that are doing stupid 
browser sniffing things. 

The rest is wording and making of compliance classes in the TPE 
Specification. Our problem is the use of "DNT compliant" as a 
marketing term for better privacy. A conformance section could say 
e.g. that servers responding with NACK can claim to be "DNT Protocol 
compliant" but not "DNT compliant". 

Rigo

On Wednesday 20 June 2012 23:34:28 Tamir Israel wrote:
> I'm not quite sure that allowing servers to reject DNT-1s
> unilaterally  deemed non-compliant will enhance trust in the
> standard. Users may well be quite frustrated to find that some
> servers (but not others) simply do not respect their signals.
> Also, many had mentioned a desire to avoid reinstating the pop-up
> mania of earlier days. I think this would further that mania.
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 14:56:11 UTC

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