- From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:46:49 -0400
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <73efed08-bd52-43ba-be35-16ade0261a74@blur>
Sorry, meant to send this to the public list. Comments below. -----Original message----- From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 17:32:33 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent Shane, no one is trying to solve all consumer consent issues with this standard. Under any legal regime, different types of processing require different types of consent---opt-in, opt-out, no consent at all, etc. What this standard says will and should have no bearing on when Amazon can give my mailing address info to FedEx, or when my doctor can sell my records for research purposes, or when Facebook can deliver first-party ads based on my user profile. All we are trying to decide is WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF A STATED DNT INSTRUCTION, how a consumer should signal that a party may act contrary to that DNT instruction. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be an appropriate result for the New York Times to be able to say in para 178 on a EULA that the user is granting permission for all of the NYT's third-party partners to ignore DNT. I fail to see how requiring a clear and prominent permission should be remotely controversial. If I have told you quite clearly not to eat my cake, you should make clear that you would like to eat my cake despite my instruction. Otherwise, users won't be able to trust that the standard works. Sent via mobile, please excuse curtness and typos -----Original message----- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org> Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmaye
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 17:47:10 UTC