Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

On 06/12/2013 20:49, Shane M Wiley wrote:

> 
> a) how would this not be an informed opt-out?
> Non-compliant UA

That is circular reasoning. The user's intent is clear and it was
informed. Therefore it was informed opt-out.

> 
> b) how is this fundamentally different from a user that uses a UA that meets your requirements but just never grants an exception?
> The outcome is no different but the opportunity to make a different choice is absent therefore the situation is non-compliant.

The user may have chosen just not to be repeatedly be reminded of a
choice he/she has no intent of changing. Also, how are you going to know
the difference?

> 
> c) how is this different from a user that uses a UA that has javascript turned off by default and keeps it turned off for third-party content?
> The outcome is no different but the opportunity to make a different choice is absent therefore the situation is non-compliant.

That is apert nonsense. The opportunity to make a different choice was
there: in the UA's settings. The user chose to turn DNT:1 on by default
and therefore has made choice. The user could have chosen not to do so.
That is ample opportunity to make a different choice.

> 
> d) how is the server going to know that there is no UGE support at all other than through discrimination based on user agent strings?"
> The user agent string is key in understanding compliance (for example, IE10).

And those can be set in the browser. And will be if you start rejecting
DNT signals based on user agent strings. So you will be back to square one.

It therefore is pointless to burden the TPE with wording that amounts to
a) excluding vulnerable user groups and b) a pointless exercise since
you cannot truly verify the outcomes.

You are talking about balance in a situation that doesn't require it.
Let me talk about reciprocity: if I am to believe that you do not track
me based upon your word not to do so, you have to believe me when I say
that I do not want to be tracked.

Also, "no means no", so do not expect a right to nag the user for a
"yes", which apparently is your understanding of the UGE.

It is ridiculous already that we're talking about a standard that
doesn't require an informed consent in the form DNT:0 in order to track,
but about an opt-out. It becomes a truly insane exercise if the standard
becomes a vehicle for nag screens in order to annoy those who set DNT:1
into submission to online stalking.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 20:25:18 UTC