- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:13:12 +0100
- To: Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>
- Cc: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
* Sid Stamm wrote: >DNT:0 means "you can track me", ... Well, it is obviously necessary to be able to convey this, otherwise it would not be possible for the user to actually state this preference, with adverse effects like that "trackers" would argue it's okay to track if there is no DNT-signal because if they do not wish to be tracked they could say so. It's not clear to me though that "DNT:0" is a good way to provide this. >Because header seems to be socially-centered or perhaps based on >jurisdiction, I'm advocating that lack of header means "whatever society >accepts because the individual hasn't weighed in" and the presence of >the header is an explicit request one way or the other. I think that if there is no DNT-header (or you run a script and there is no API or it does not offer an answer one way or the other) then the DNT protocol does not apply to the situation, and as such the DNT specifi- cation cannot control the semantics of the communication, unless perhaps the various underlying protocols like the HTTP protocol are revised so they define this meaning. In order words, no DNT signal should mean what it meant before there was a DNT signal, and what that is is out of scope of this Working Group. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 00:20:31 UTC