Re: Super Cookies in Privacy Browsing mode

On Friday 16 January 2015 13:22:20 David Singer wrote:
> > 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.

It is yet another signal. Ok, it is not DNT, but it follows the same paradigm. 
I understand the branding issue, so let's call it BND (Be Nice Don'tprofile)

> 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.

Nothing to do with being paranoid. "Denn nur was ihr schwarz auf weiss 
besitzt, könnt ihr getrost nach Hause tragen" says Goethe. And he is right :)

Because, without feedback, you're in non-binding hand waving. At this level 
and point, a cookie would do. And if you're concerned about the cookie being 
ephemeral, use a super-cookie. It is the feedback message, that changes the 
nature of protocol and message value, legally... 

Which means feedback is the difference between the real thing and the "making 


Received on Monday, 19 January 2015 09:48:01 UTC