- From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:25:34 -0400
- To: Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>
- Cc: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABtrr-W1uSna8Qe=eZ=kAkDmC859rk5oLdzvH21g2wLCqWZe+Q@mail.gmail.com>
So, is this essentially arguing that the EU will require affirmative, opt-in consent for running any dynamic content? That doesn't seem wise. It strike me that not all ad-blocker detection need to be done via scripting. E.g., the traditional web-beacon model of crafting the page with a personalized image URL and detecting if that asset was loaded could be a method to detect blocking of certain domains without accessing any persistent state in the UA. Although maybe I'm misunderstanding this? best, Joe On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org> wrote: > Hello all. > > In the context of our draft Group Note on Fingerprinting Guidance for Web > Specification Authors [1] and general Web privacy mandate, it might be > worthwhile to discuss the specific issue of sites running scripts to detect > the presence of ad-blockers/tracking blockers. This issue was recently > highlighted in a tweet from Alexander Hanff and picked up by various media > sources, including this article in the Register: > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/23/anti_ad_blockers_face_legal_challenges/ > > Christine > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/fingerprinting-guidance/ > -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 13:26:26 UTC