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

Re: action-307, issue-119, absolutely not tracking

From: Dobbs, Brooks <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:56:27 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B40EB3A3384EB4CB812241DDDC41D8707B9F5@KBMEXMBXPR01.kbm1.loc>
David,

Admittedly, I needed to start by looking up "bike-shedding", but, having
done so, I am not sure I agree.

I think it would help us all to fully appreciate that UGEs aren't
exceptions to how DNT:1 is processed by a specific site; if an exception
at all, they are exceptions to DNT:1 being sent to ALL sites.  Isn't this
fundamentally different?  A UGE site has no way of knowing if they are "an
exception" or if the user's base line choice was to send DNT: 0 to all
sites.  I could imagine this having implications for sites that appear as
both 1st and 3rd parties.

In any event, I think we ought to be as consistent and clear as possible.
Where something isn't an exception (or where the meaning of what it is an
exception to is unclear) we should fix the language.  Agree?


-Brooks


-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email  including attachments  may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 11/8/12 10:33 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
>On Nov 8, 2012, at 16:30 , "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:
>
>> Just as a point of clarification here I am noticing some language I
>> believe to be technically incorrect entering into the discussion.  To be
>> clear - "short term collection" is NOT an exception; it is a permitted
>>use.
>
>sorry.  you are quite right.
>
>> 
>> This actually highlights another issue.  For consistency we may need to
>> change the language around user granted "exceptions" because they aren't
>> really exceptions.  An exception would be a special dispensation to
>> process a DNT: 1 signal differently than would otherwise be allowed.
>
>I have long felt that users give 'permission' (not 'exception') and that
>we need a different word for what the spec. allows in restricted
>circumstances (not 'permission' or 'exception').  But this is
>bike-shedding...
>
>
>David Singer
>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 15:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC