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: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:02:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CANZBoGgE72fJCCdOnvJ28eV=q9gOu=E8b9VgmPFayeCDacXu2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Cc: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, "<public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org>
It seems odd to require that UAs inform users of potential negative effects
of enabling DNT, without also requiring that the user be informed of
potential positive effects.  If we're going to require a list of specific
effects be disclosed, that list should be balanced and relevant to what
users want to know.

(I am not advocating detailed requirements on UA UI here, just pointing out
that if we do go down the road of mandating disclosure, that disclosure
should not limited to negative effects.)


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Wainberg <
david@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
>
> On 11/13/12 2:06 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
>
>> but requiring disclosure about an unproven parade of horribles in advance
>> is not something that a technical standards setting body should be
>> contemplating.
>>
> I believe we've already agreed that the DNT signal should reflect the
> user's explicit and informed consent. Doesn't the informed piece of that
> equation require explanation of the effects of DNT? But I can see that if
> you do not believe that provisions in this spec will have negative effects
> for the internet and internet users, then you wouldn't see the need for
> informing users of such negative effects. So, what do we need to do to
> convince you? Once we're on common ground about that, then maybe we can
> have a more productive conversation about how best to inform users.
>
> -David
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 22:02:59 UTC

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