Re: Confused by DAA's messages. Please explain

David,

>>  in your opinion, which I think is flawed.

I went back again and reviewed the TPE ­ my personal opinion is that Apple
is walking a very fine line here with the spec. The TPE spec requires a
minimum of two choices ­  DNT:Unset (null) or DNT:1 ­ it MAY offer a third
choice DNT:0

So if go with the 'broadest' possible view of the spec I'd say that you're
right on the edge. In Safari iOS there is NO warning, notification or
whatever that DNT has been enabled. It's assumed that because I want
'Private Browsing' that I also don't want to be tracked. That's a VENDOR
choice but you're including it as a CONSUMER choice. Again a very fine line.

Secondly there is no indication any more about sending a "" null character
which appears to have disappeared from the spec altogether - in section 4.3
if no value is observed then the value is null but I'm not sure anymore if
this character is even transmitted to the server.

Lets talk about DNT:0 for a moment. This is required in the EU - currently
it's not in iOS 6 which means that 'technically' any iPhone used overseas is
not compliant. Which makes me wonder how you intend to solve that one,
especially if I'm traveling between the US and EU. Where do I change MY
choice - currently you can't.

SummaryŠ

In the US IMO you're borderline compliant - in the EU you're not compliant.
To solve the problem in an unambiguous manner there must be a clear choice
for the consumer, not a vendor imposed assumption. Also remember this thread
was started because of the whole 'syntactic' issue - until DNT has a method
to determine who set the signal then if the content provider says they honor
that then they MUST follow the spec. Singling out Microsoft or any other
vendor is NOT possible via the spec. If Roy wishes to add another patch to
Apache that does that, that's his prerogative, but now IMO he violates the
spec again because he's interfering with a signal that he cannot clearly
detect was NOT set by a user.

Leadership is about doing the right thing - not constantly taking the
broadest possible position so you can skate under the covers so to speak.
You designed this spec to be a binary choice - yet everyone including the
DAA now wishes to interpret it as they wish.

>From you minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/07/03-dnt-minutes

zaneis: My members (now) seeing 20-25% of user base sending DNT flag. Early
on, our position had been: perhaps the W3C could standardize the DNT signal,
and we would treat that as an industry opt-out.
... That is no longer tenable.
... We expect DNT:1 signals to approach 50% in short-term.

zaneis: No longer want to try to distinguish between what DNT:1 signals are
legitimate and which are not.

zaneis: Now, within industry, we've decided to take a different approach,
and focus on deidentification. Hope that could be a way to make consensus.
... Yes, we had fought tooth and nail on the default and UI issue, and we're
now willing to take those off the table in the name of progress. Now the
question is what level of deidentification is appropriate and implementable.
We want to have that discussion.

Right there in black and white the DAA has now indicated right at the last
minute that they don't care anymore about distinguishing if the signal is
legitimate or not (kind of blows Roy's patch idea out of the water) and now
that they're seeing DNT:1 signals exceeding a threshold (which they set) of
25% have decided a change is in order.

This is unbelievable ­ DNT no longer matters ­ it now means that you have to
opt-out by clicking on their icons. That's why I said what the advertising
industry now WANTS is to simply have the DNT: 1 signal actually meanŠ
DEIDENTITY-MY-DATA=1

And you're all less than 30 days before getting that shoved down your
throats by Chairs who are forcing two competing proposals to be reviewed.
It's an embarrassment to the process and a clearly shows the Chairs lack any
credibility whatsoever.





Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
Cell: 720.663.1752


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files
or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
or distribution of such information is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail
and delete the original transmission and its attachments and destroy any
copies thereof. Thank you.