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

Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 02:29:21 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <803A2D70-5CB8-4DE8-9492-76A5AA448B81@gbiv.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
On Nov 1, 2012, at 4:10 PM, John Simpson wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> If automated transparency is desired, then the solution is to provide
>> a means for the server to say that it won't comply with an invalid signal.
>> In order for that to be required, it must be a mechanism usable
>> by servers that have no direct access to the GUI, including redirect
>> handlers and beacons, which means it must be in the tracking status
>> value.
> Is there a problem with it being in the tracking status value?

I am not aware of any problem -- I was just trying to describe
all options.

>> If no protocol mechanism is provided, then it is likely that users
>> will be notified via the privacy policy, assuming that the server
>> adheres to any DNT signals.
> 
> A privacy policy that is rarely read by anyone doesn't seem to be an adequate means of notification.

Yes, it would not be my first choice.  A third party that is
supplying page content could notify the user directly.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 09:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC