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>

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 

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 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:06 UTC