Re: ACTION-390: alternative UA affordances for DNT choice

Thanks David ­ more below.

From:  David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date:  Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:34 AM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  "Edward W. Felten" <felten@CS.Princeton.EDU>,
"<public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: ACTION-390: alternative UA affordances for DNT choice

> 
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 22:53 , Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The purpose of the proposed guidelines is to help ensure that the User is in
>> position to make an informed choice.
>> 
>> How does allowing UA's to enact DNT without offering information on what DNT
>> does is help users to make informed choices?
> 
> No one is suggesting your strawman -- that the user was not informed *at all*.
> They are suggesting that the user may be informed by something other than the
> UA itself, and that the DNT signal still result from an informed choice.

Can you provide some examples of how this would work for your UA's?

Leaving aside Brook's objections for a moment, Ed's suggestion where the
UA's user interface tethered to a browser could work. If you don't feel that
this example fits within the proposed guidelines, let's work together on
language to address that specific concern.

Allowing UA's to leave disclosure to other entities will not consistently
get us to informed consent. (e.g., UA assumes other entity will make
disclosures, other entities will assume the UA is doing so).  If the UA
wants the right to enact a valid DNT signal, then the UA should have
responsibility for ensuring that the User has made an informed choices.

> 
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>