Re: Comments on tracking-compliance.html

I agree that would be a perverse result. It's likely the scenario you 
describe would be an unfair trade practice under FTC jurisdiction (in 
the US). I agree more broadly that appropriate notice for users is an 
issue. I just don't think it's a problem we should try to solve. It's 
not our job to fix privacy regulation around the world. We're going to 
have to let go a bit, and see what regulatory bodies, users, and 
software makers do with the tools we give them. A simple "DNT honored 
here" flag in the headers, for example, provides meaningful and 
actionable information to users (via the client). Let the client 
software decide how to present it to users. Let regulatory organizations 
build the rest of the framework around enforcement.

On 10/25/11 11:16 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
> Fair enough, but the legal definition of consent is actually incredibly
> vague in many jurisdictions, and we may wish to specify a higher
> standard for users in those places where the requirements are weak or
> unclear.  For instance, it would be a perverse result if a company's
> privacy policy could say both "we comply with 'Do Not Track'" and "oh,
> by the way, we reserve the right to track you."  One way to avoid the
> legal inconsistency problem would be to define "Affirmative Informed
> Consent" as AT LEAST in response to a clear and prominent request
> separate from other permissions/disclosures.
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 19:00:59 UTC