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

Re: Modifying a DNT Header (ISSUE-153, ACTION-285)

From: Dobbs, Brooks <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:07:14 +0000
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B40EB3A3384EB4CB812241DDDC41D87064672@KBMEXMBXPR01.kbm1.loc>
I am not sure how these are directly related?   The spec calls for signals to be sent only as a result of user choice/consent.  Some implementors may not follow this and, as you list, this may create cascading issues.  I can't see how allowing more signals to be sent without choice helps alleviate this problem.


--

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

[cid:6315A7B1-20F4-41B0-9C37-E91B81B330A6]

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.

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:22 PM
To: Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com<mailto:brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Modifying a DNT Header (ISSUE-153, ACTION-285)

The group has received new information about its language on browser user interface.  The group consensus had been that a mainstream browser must reflect a user's preference to be compliant.  Many members of the group only agreed so long as a website could not ignore DNT headers from a non-compliant browser.  Recent events include:

  *   a large advertising company announced it would ignore DNT headers from an allegedly (but not actually) non-compliant web browser,
  *   several advertising industry trade groups have endorsed that position, and
  *   a popular open-source web server shipped with a configuration that would ignore DNT headers from that browser.

These episodes undermined a foundational assumption of the group's consensus on browser user interface.  I am uncertain whether that consensus remains intact.

Jonathan


On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:

Jonathan,

This seems at odd with the initial consent requirement:

---
Key to that notion of expression is that it must reflect the user's preference, not the choice of some vendor, institution, or network-imposed mechanism outside the user's control. The basic principle is that a tracking preference expression is only transmitted when it reflects a deliberate choice by the user.
---

Consent is a MUST, but under this text choice could be overridden without even specifically violating the spec just because a vendor chose not to follow a best practice?  This doesn't appear very consistent.

-Brooks

--

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

[cid:FFD5302F-2746-413A-940E-D9F9A20BE525]

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.

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:52 AM
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Modifying a DNT Header (ISSUE-153, ACTION-285)
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:52 AM

Proposed text:

If user-controlled software modifies a DNT header sent by a user agent, it is a best practice for the software to clearly explain its modifications to the user.






image[198].png
(image/png attachment: image_198_.png)

image[196].png
(image/png attachment: image_196_.png)

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 18:07:43 UTC

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