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 O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:46:02 +0100
To: "'Rigo Wenning'" <rigo@w3.org>, "'Mike Zaneis'" <mike@iab.net>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Ed Felten'" <ed@felten.com>, "'David Wainberg'" <david@networkadvertising.org>
Message-ID: <00ea01cd94f3$ecc43da0$c64cb8e0$@baycloud.com>
The "UK cookie banners" were an attempt to offer user consent (to tracking
storage) to meet the EU requirements. The DNT exception API (with DNT:0
returned to websites if users agree) is a potentially superior mechanism
(because it works with 3rd parties) which was not there when we needed it.
The API needs to be a bit richer (more information carried e.g. consent
associated with legal entities not technical domain origins) .Of course it
is not giving consent to individual storage but the essence of that was to
give users control over tracking which the exception API could do very well.

It would be good to get a comment from the A29WP on this.

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: 17 September 2012 07:26
To: Mike Zaneis
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; David Singer; Ed Felten; David Wainberg
Subject: Re: ACTION-253 ISSUE: 119 and ACTION 208 ISSUE-148 Response signal
for "not tracking" and definition for DNT:0

On Sunday 16 September 2012 23:23:57 Mike Zaneis wrote:
> 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.

Can you give me a pointer to the decision of the co-chair?

Rigo
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 16:46:35 UTC

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