- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:06:41 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html The term "consumer" is widely regarded as offensive and derogatory and it's simply wrong to use it where the draft uses it, starting with the fact that it's common to legally limit the definition of the term to non-commercial users. The relationship between a citizen and their re- presentatives for instance is that of a citizen, not that of a consumer. In section 2.1 "Using the internet by definition involves the exchange of data across servers; the web cannot exist without it." I am not sure what this is meant to say, but what does say is, erm, incorrect? On the user end, example.com is one server, that server does not have to ex- change data with any other server. My homepage for instance does not ex- change data with any other server when you load it. I note that the section is meant to address "What are the underlying concerns? ... what are people afraid of?" but doesn't despite all the text. In section 3.2 "A third party is anyone other than a first party as defined above." With the proposed definitions, that would make the user a third party. Regarding the definition of "Consent", I rather doubt it would be a good idea for this Working Group to attempt to define the term, reasons in- clude that laws already provide definitions of that, and any consensus- based definition is likely to be inconsistent with existing legal ones. Section 4.2 requires proxies to not remove the header without consent of the user. It is not clear to me that this is a good idea to specify this as that might create the impression generally speaking it is unclear if proxies may remove headers like this one which I would disagree with. It might be better to limit the scope to things between two end points and not have a separate notion of "Intermediary compliance". Various sections refer to "behavioral tracking". That seems borderline tautological to me. The text in 6.2 about interactions with opt-out cookies is redundant as all it says people must comply with their promises. This should instead say that DNT does not affect other mechanisms or that their interaction is out of scope. I hope this draft is moved to some publically exposed version control system soon. regards, -- 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 Wednesday, 26 October 2011 02:07:03 UTC