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

Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:25:45 -0700
Message-id: <E21E44F7-A47F-4483-86F4-23456766DBFB@apple.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
That's very helpful, thanks.

I think we need to consider 3 scenarios:
* the site is small and runs their own server.  My feeling is that if they can do that, they can configure it.  Apache seems to make it quite easy to include response headers, by editing httpd.conf or the .htaccess file (see <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_headers.html#header>);
* the site is large, does tracking; they should have the skills to handle responses or the well-known URI;
* the site is hosted and does tracking.

It's the last that I think I know least about and could be most difficult under either scenario.

On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:51 , Lauren Gelman wrote:

> 
> I work with small businesses.  I think that for sites that have the technical skill to implement targeted ads, it is not unreasonable to ask them to implement DNT.  There already are off-the shelf implementations.  Here is an open source one for apache.
> 
> http://jiboumans.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/be-do-not-track-compliant-in-30-microseconds-or-less/
> 
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
>> David,
>> 
>> Almost all sites allow tracking from a hosted services perspective (placing 3rd party tags or using native hosted services tools) but typically in a first party sense.  Most site operators for small business do not have the technical skill to "write a server config file".  That said, I agree that hosted services may need to look at beginning to offer these types of plug-n-play services for their customers.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 7:45 PM
>> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>> Subject: Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:13 , Shane Wiley wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The one choice that does appear to be off the table at this point (unless someone strongly disagrees) is Response Headers in isolation as this would take years before medium to small web sites would be able to support DNT then (would require standard web server systems to come with off-the-shelf support for Response Headers).  Agreed?
>>> 
>> 
>> I think if you're not doing any tracking, then they are roughly equally easy:
>> a) write the server config file to say "I am not tracking" in the response to every request
>> or
>> b) write a resource at the well-known location that says the same thing.
>> 
>> I am less clear about sites that do "small-scale" or "simple" tracking (is there such a thing)?
>> 
>> On hosted sites, I would have thought that most of them don't give access to the data that would allow tracking in the first place.  If they *do* give such access, then their life is more complex.  If they use the data themselves, it is similarly more complex.  One nasty hole would be a hosting service that enables its customers to track their customers, but not to see the DNT header or generate a response. They have work to do.
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Lauren Gelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512
> gelman@blurryedge.com
> http://blurryedge.com
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 23:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC