- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:04:43 +0100
- To: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>
- Cc: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Haakon Bratsberg <haakonfb@opera.com>, "public-tracking-international@w3.org" <public-tracking-international@w3.org>
Vinay, On Tuesday 05 March 2013 08:46:53 Vinay Goel wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing something here, but unless we change what a > website can no longer do when it receives DNT:1 (ie. first party > analytics and/or first party customization), isn't DNT only part of > the solution to handle the restrictions of the ePrivacy Directive? One of the things that is already clear is that the 1st party/ 3rd party distinction doesn't work for Europe. So everybody has to behave like a 3rd party in DNT > I > don't understand how DNT removes the entire need for websites to do > window shades/other consent mechanisms for the use of cookies. This works via the Whereas 66 in the ePrivacy Directive: Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. Window shades are soooo ugly. We can get rid of them. > I > think we should discuss in the Berlin workshop what compliance looks > like for websites; and whether DNT is enough to comply with the > ePrivacy Directive. That's the plan. The plan is to have DNT:1 as an implementation guide for conformance and DNT:0 as a way to open up and do business/personalization etc. > > Am I missing an interpretation/analysis that DNT (as currently drafted > to not restrict 1st party analytics/customization) could equal > compliance with the ePrivacy directive? again, 3rd party cross-site only comes from a requirement from the FTC that isn't viable in Europe. Once you remove that distinction, everything works fine so far IMHO. This is one of the things to discuss. --Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 17:05:14 UTC