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: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:14:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4FE33A63.5050804@cippic.ca>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: public-tracking@w3.org, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Rigo -- designing the spec in a manner that lets servers expressly 
invalidate a DNT-1 within the context of the spec seems a bad idea. I'd 
actually prefer to leave it as is (not necessarily in a fog, but leave 
it to the server's discretion whether they think they can ignore a 
valid-seeming signal or not instead of giving them the right to capacity 
to invalidate a signal).

Unless you want to take the further (and highly complicated) step of 
providing a mechanism for UAs to confirm 'non-compliant' DNT signals 
with the user and respond with a re-affirmation....


On 6/21/2012 10:55 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> 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 15:15:58 UTC

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