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

Re: tracking-ISSUE-147: Transporting Consent via the Exception / DNT mechanisms [Global Considerations]

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:17:45 +0200
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2507217.K3LssPoRPU@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
David, 

Roy is right in saying that we currently do not define what DNT;0 means. 
>From a US perspective, falling back to the legal default means everything is 
permitted. Falling back in the EU would probably be as restrictive as DNT;1 
or even more so. 

Consequently I think we should add a section to describe things that _at 
least_ allowed if DNT;0 is sent. This way we do not have to define tracking 
entirely, but we state that we expect _at least_ that certain things must be 
permitted and are expected to occur. 

This would also somewhat resolve the "informed consent" issue Roy was 
raising. 

Rigo
On Monday 21 May 2012 14:43:29 David Singer wrote:
> C: I send DNT:0; I am explicitly stating that I grant you an exception and
> can track me.
> 
> At the moment, after an exception grant by the user, we switch from DNT:1
> to DNT:0, and so I have no way of saying "I ask everyone else not to
> track me, but I am not asking you anything."  Instead, we say "I am
> asking you to comply with the behavior defined for DNT:0" (which might
> well be different from no header).
> 
> Whether this matters or not, I don't know, but we are a little confused,
> in that the converse of DNT:1 is the absence of a header, not DNT:0, in
> some cases.
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 14:18:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC