- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:47:50 -0700
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Nike, Interestingly each of the terms you've selected have specific legal context and break your goal of "avoid getting into the details of a particular model of content (leaving that up to the implementer and the particular jurisdiction's [laws])". That aside, many of us feel this language is close but has some unintended impacts to user experiences albeit it well intentioned. Rather than use the terms "distinct, affirmative" I would recommend this be altered to "explicit" as this allows some degree of bundling of permissions but means the material elements must be directly evident to a user for it to meet the "explicit" bar (again, another term with legal context - I don't know how we discuss this topic without stepping into existing legal territory :-) ). I stripped out redundant terms such as "previously" and "tracking" as these are already implied. The amended statement would be: "Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have received explicit, informed consent to do so." - Shane -----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:27 AM To: Tracking Protection Working Group WG Cc: David Singer Subject: Re: action-159 Draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent David and I were tasked with coming up with a shorter piece of text on standards for out-of-band override of a user's DNT preference (that is, contra to a user-agent-managed site-specific exception). This proposal is meant to avoid getting in to the details of a particular model of consent (leaving that up to the implementer and the particular jurisdiction's regulator) while specifying what would be necessary to match our understanding of a user's expressed preference. > Sites MAY override a user's DNT preference if they have previously received _distinct, affirmative, informed consent_ to track the user. (Really, we're just proposing these three adjectives, and I'm guessing that something like this sentence would go around them, but I leave that up to the editors. Also, this doesn't speak to the tracking response question, which I believe we have broad consensus on but is likely taken up elsewhere.) >From a handful of coffee conversations, it seems like this short set of descriptors might be amenable to various stakeholders. Thanks, Nick
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:48:48 UTC