- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:22:20 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-privacy@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 13:08 , Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote: > > On Thursday 15 January 2015 16:35:23 David Singer wrote: >> Here’s an example. A couple of years ago I used ‘private browsing’ on our >> home computer to look for my wife’s present. Yes, all the history, cookies >> etc. were cleared of the history. >> >> But when I checked ‘search history’ on Google, of course, there was all the >> data! Servers are currently unaware that the user is currently trying to do >> something private; I am suggesting this as a way that they can be aware and >> nice, without actually impacting their business. > > Yes, this could be a signal that could be carried over an extended DNT > infrastructure. And you need the feedback from the server to make sure they're > actually doing it. And if they lie, let the legal system do the work… Actually, I disagree. a) It’s independent of DNT. Orthogonal. b) Unless you are paranoid, you don’t need the feedback. Anything they do is an improvement on today, and I don’t expect there to be much in the way of conformance rules, since the details of the handling are very much specific to the nature of the service. > > Yep, this was also meandering through my thought garden and is an extension of > the sticky policy paradigm, if you think it through.. > > --Rigo David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 21:23:12 UTC