Re: Agenda: Global considerations F2F meeting 11-12 Berlin

Hi Rigo,

Is the expectation that browser manufacturers will provide one set of information to users when enabling Do Not Track in the US and a different set of information to users when enabling Do Not Track in the EU?  Without that, how do you expect consumers to understand what setting Do Not Track means?

-Vinay


On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 20:12:36 UTC