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

Re: ACTION-253 ISSUE: 119 and ACTION 208 ISSUE-148 Response signal for "not tracking" and definition for DNT:0

From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:23:57 +0000
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Message-ID: <5EC9FFE7-A4BD-459D-B1A3-C250073316DE@iab.net>
Actually, now that the Co-Chair has decided against the need for a DNT: 0 option by browsers, this option is meaningless. we should stop acting like any W3C standard will truly offer users multiple useful options. What an unfortunate development. 

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

On Sep 16, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26:15 David Singer wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 6:58 , Ed Felten <ed@felten.com> wrote:
>>> What I'm trying to get at is what statement the user is thought
>>> to be making by sending DNT:0 rather than sending nothing.
>> As I see it, DNT:0 means
> 
> We say DNT should represent an expression of the user's preference. 
> 
> DNT:1 means "please respect the compliance document and tell me
> DNT:unset means "I have no clue or I do not care or I'm not 
> configured yet"
> DNT:0 means "I see you want to track me and that is ok" (within the 
> boundaries of my local law". 
> 
> In the absence of all local data protection/privacy law, unset and 
> DNT:0 are equivalent. But if you hit a sectorial privacy law in the 
> US or if you want to track in the EU (above the Radar), then you 
> need an affirmative user expression that you can record. Whether the 
> TPE or the Compliance Spec will be sufficient for EU law is a thing 
> I had the assumption, we are working on. And as I understood Rob, we 
> may issue a Working Group Note that explains what we believe must be 
> done in addition to DNT implementation to express consent. I think 
> it would be good to have that in a separate document. But on the 
> other hand, if we tear down the foundation of the expression and 
> communication of consent by removing DNT:0 we can just forget about 
> all this and tell the EU folks to move on and forget about DNT. The 
> banners about cookies on UK sites are nice, aren't they? This is 
> what you get if DNT:0 fails. 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Rigo
> 
Received on Sunday, 16 September 2012 23:24:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC