Re: Call for proposals for ISSUE-194

Ian, 

thanks for the remarks. They helped my understanding and I agree that 
the notion of "session" is getting more and more difficult boundaries. 

On Friday 03 May 2013 10:16:37 Ian Fette wrote:
> Why is it that if you
> propose the default is "unset" and the user makes an affirmative
> choice for DNT0/1, that one choice would have to be re-affirmed on a
> session basis whereas the other choice would persist?

I think the issue Rob is addressing is the same as with the location 
engine. Especially on mobile, it is extremely useful to be able to 
locate yourself and ask for surrounding services and restaurants and the 
like. (an ideal advertisement situation, if used responsibly). We had a 
wild discussion in the Geolocation API WG about what geolocation meant 
for privacy. Initially, the device people wanted to only provide ONE 
question for a service asking for your location. Then, the interface 
would never bother again. 

But a user may use location based services on the go and does not 
remember that she has given permission. Coming back in a different 
context, she is not asked anymore and the location is just given and 
shared. 

This is why the ePrivacy Directive requires a beacon when geolocation is 
active. Despite me failing to impose this on the geolocation API 
Specification, that's what modern phones implement. 

The same could be true for DNT. Just some uninvasive sign somewhere. 
Nobody wants to ask back all the time. But a device with an interface to 
the user could probably be more informative than just asking once and 
then bury everything in 7 levels of menus. 

Given that innovation happens in the interface, I would not argue for a 
MUST or SHOULD, rather some non normative considerations that explain 
further that DNT must be an informed decision of the user (I always said 
that this cuts both ways)

 --Rigo

Received on Sunday, 5 May 2013 02:41:46 UTC