RE: action-159 Draft shorter language to describe conditions for consent

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