Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

Rob,

Could you clarify what you refer to as "EU participants" and "opt-in"? Am not sure I can follow.

Kind regards,
Kimon


From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>
Organization: W3C
Date: Tuesday 15 May 2012 12:36
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>>, "rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>
Subject: Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday 15 May 2012 12:37

Rob,

I think this is central. But I do not agree with you. I think that sending
and ACK an DNT signal means data collection for "tracking and
advertisement". This is the purpose set in the compliance specification.
High level purposes are not foreign to the system. So I hope we can overcome
that obstacle.

Rigo

On Tuesday 08 May 2012 15:16:56 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
2) Sites cannot obtain specific and informed consent with a
     browser-driven dialog system that has no conception of the
     purpose for which the data is being collected. Tracking,
     even if we agree how to define it, is not a purpose.
     "DNT: 0" does not describe a purpose. Therefore, each site
     must construct its own consent dialog, with its own unique
     opt-in for EU participants, to ensure that the permission
     it has requested is reasonably understood by its audience
     and sufficiently descriptive of the data collection purpose.