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: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:02 -0800
Message-Id: <D7795F81-CE5B-472C-B7D6-3C3909C2556C@consumerwatchdog.org>
Cc: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
The place for an "educational" campaign about the impact of enabling DNT or not -- something that might well be beneficial -- is outside the specification and probably out of scope.

----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org

On Nov 13, 2012, at 1:46 PM, David Wainberg 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 22:57:15 UTC

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