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

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:41:46 +0100
Cc: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <191CCB21-2127-4F87-B6E0-3E98AD137CDD@apple.com>
To: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>

On Nov 8, 2012, at 17:38 , Ed Felten <ed@felten.com> wrote:

> I think this gets to a point that Nick raised on yesterday's call.   Assuming that we adopt the new approach to user-granted exceptions (UGEs) that Adrian and others have proposed, there will then be two reasons that DNT:0 could be sent to a site.
> 
> Case 1: The user has expressed to the User Agent (UA) that they want to send DNT:0 generally.  In this case the UA is vouching that this is the choice the user has made, and the site can engage in tracking (to the extent allowed by law).
> 
> Case 2: The user has granted a UGE, and the site has implanted that UGE into the UA via the new API.  In this case the site is vouching that the user granted it a UGE, and if the site made any promises to the user in the course of asking for that UGE then the user can rely on those promises. 
> 
> The UA knows which of the two cases it is in, but the site might not be able to tell the difference.

Absolutely, it cannot. But, does it need to?  If so, it would be easy to have other values of DNT, or a dual syntax (my general preference is X, but you are the lucky recipient of Y).  Do we need the complication?


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 16:42:20 UTC

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