Re: Action 32 -- Proposed language for site-specific exception

I agree - I'm worried about any tech-specific requirements here. Something
along these lines without the cookie-specific is good. Have we actually
decided, though, whether the header reflects the choice to ok tracking for
a given site?

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Thank you John – helpful starting point.  I’d suggest we not assert only a
> cookie as the “exception” memory mechanism but a recommended one.  It could
> be equally viable and appropriate to store this information in a
> registration key, a browser setting, or some other technical mechanism.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> - Shane****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:00 AM
> *To:* Aleecia M. McDonald; Nicholas Doty
> *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org Group WG
> *Subject:* Action 32 -- Proposed language for site-specific exception****
>
> ** **
>
> Proposed language for a site-specific exception using a cookie:****
>
> ** **
>
> When a DNT enabled user agent grants a site-specific exception, the site
> places a site-specific opt-in cookie on the user agent allowing the site to
> respond as a First Party.  The DNT header must remain enabled so that if
> the user returns to the site, both the user's general preference for DNT
> and the site-specific exception will be clear.  This could enable the site
> to provide a higher level of privacy than if DNT were not enabled, but less
> than if the exception had not been granted. Opt-in site-specific exception
> cookies should expire within three months, enabling the site to determine
> periodically whether the user intends to continue to grant an exception.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> ----------------****
>
> John M. Simpson****
>
> Consumer Advocate****
>
> Consumer Watchdog****
>
> Tel: 310-392-7041****
>
>  ****
>



-- 

Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381