Re: W3C says DNT by Default not compliant

I think it is dramatically improving right now!

Rigo

On Monday 11 June 2012 12:50:09 Alan Chapell wrote:
> A few thoughts from this piece and the recent CNN article:
> 
> If the current grand compromise is the absolute end point for
> where the privacy leaning folks are willing to go, I think we're
> going to have a difficult time reaching anything that resembles
> consensus within this group.
> 
> Moreover, I'm growing increasingly concerned by some of the
> characterizations being made by individual members of this group
> to the press. To be clear - I'm not looking to place a gag on
> anyone. However, if we're going to go the press anytime there is
> a disagreement, it may have a chilling effect on some members of
> this group's ability to provide input. A handful of the larger
> entities within the group have raised similar concerns
> previously, so I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.
> 
> Its one thing for a reporter to review the public minutes from our
> discussions and reach a conclusion ­ its another for a member of
> this group to characterize the views of others in the group as it
> opens the door to all kinds of mis-interpretation and hearsay.
> And at the end of the day, it seems like this is an unproductive
> direction...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
> 
> 
> From:  Mark Lizar <info@smartspecies.com>
> Date:  Monday, June 11, 2012 9:28 AM
> To:  <public-privacy@w3.org>
> Subject:  W3C says DNT by Default not compliant
> Resent-From:  <public-privacy@w3.org>
> Resent-Date:  Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:43:11 +0000
> 
> This is interesting..
> 
> Here is some snippits.  form this article, 'Standards group to bar
> IE10 from claiming 'Do Not Track' compliance'
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227881/Standards_group_to_
> bar_IE10_f rom_claiming_Do_Not_Track_compliance
> 
> Isn't DNT by default an obviously appropriate privacy by design
> choice?
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Here are some snippits.  *************************
> 
> "On Wednesday, the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) standards
> organization reached a compromise on some aspects of "Do Not
> Track," the browser feature that signals whether a user wants
> online advertisers and websites to track his or her movements.
> 
> The new draft of the standard, which may be months from passing in
> final form, explicitly bars browsers from setting Do Not Track
> (DNT) on by default."
> 
> snip
> 
> "An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal
> without a user's explicit consent," the draft reads ( download
> PDF http://tinyurl.com/6p5evwt ).
> 
> That seemed squarely aimed at Microsoft.
> 
> "But the W3C group that's been hammering out DNT disagreed, and
> said flatly that while Microsoft is perfectly free to do what it
> wants, it cannot call IE10 DNT compliant if it continues down its
> on-by-default road."
> 
> snip
> 
> "We don't have agreement on what the ramifications are. Can ad
> networks ignore a tracking request from IE10?" Mayer said.
> "Google and Yahoo and Adobe said they should be able to ignore
> the header from IE10, but Mozilla and Apple have said that ad
> networks should not ignore it."
> 
> Microsoft was not available for comment on the W3C draft
> specification that would bar it from advertising IE10 as
> compliant with DNT.

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 19:40:46 UTC