Re: June change proposal: public commitment

Looks like Dan and I spotted the same issue. Nick, feel free to lump our
proposals together.

Jonathan

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Dan Auerbach wrote:

>  This is a bit pedantic, but I realize that we nowhere in the draft have
> anything related to the public commitment of companies who choose to abide
> by DNT. In particular, it is critical that we avoid the pitfalls of P3P (a
> complicated story, but we don't want vacuous DNT response headers in the
> same way that vacuous P3P policies have developed), and make crystal clear
> that sending a response header indicating compliance really means
> compliance.
>
> I believe this was related to ISSUE 45. Here's some old text:
>
> *A party MUST make a public commitment that it complies with this
> standard. A "public commitment" may consist of a statement in a privacy
> policy, a response header, or any other reasonable means.  This standard
> does not require a specific form of "public commitment." *
>
> --
> Dan Auerbach
> Staff Technologist
> Electronic Frontier Foundationdan@eff.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dan@eff.org');>
> 415 436 9333 x134
>
>