W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Issue-4

From: Sean Harvey <sharvey@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:50:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFy-vueoMeKbncYX+=Ebd+iCaN2Z8KAJw-Ss9Q_ed9cHy=eRQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Aleecia, I agree with Jonathan on this point. More information would be
useful to the server.

And I actually do disagree that opt in/out is currently out of scope. Our
understanding coming in was that compliance with DNT might hinge on it
being a vehicle for affirmative consent by the consumer, not a default
setting from an ISP or in a browser. If the committee wants a broader scope
we do need to discuss rather than immediately take it out of scope. We need
to discuss further.

That said, as others on the list have indicated, we do need to give the
vendors scope to come up with creative, simple & useful ways to set the DNT
header. i.e. as part of a sliding scale instead of a FE checkbox
requirement. I'm sure as we hash it out we can come up with a way to
provide flexibilty & creativity of usability/UI design while still ensuring
that DNT represents affirmative consumer consent.

I'm also confused by your statement that this is a political decision. Can
you elaborate?


Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 14:50:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:41 UTC