W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Behavior of user agents after granting exceptions

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:50:21 +0000
To: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>
Message-ID: <5A12381B-96AD-4DFA-8180-3B4445FE9D86@att.com>
I'm unsure If we have consensus on what represents express intent, or its role in exception granting and expression. Express intent seems to me to be once of those double-edged concepts, that if we attempt to define too narrowly, could stifle innovation at the same as it places undue burdens on users to take explicit action in every exception grant case.

Or am I reading too much into the meaning of express intent as you are using it?

Bryan Sullivan

On Apr 15, 2012, at 9:26 AM, "Lee Tien" <tien@eff.org> wrote:

> Did we actually reach consensus on the default issue?  I wasn't in DC and have been working cybersecurity stuff so I'm not up on the latest, haven't had a chance to get briefed by Peter.
> Lee
> On Apr 14, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>> On Friday 13 April 2012 22:10:48 Matthias Schunter wrote:
>>> This heuristics is in general not permitted as the default. Installed as
>>> default (without obtaining a user preference), it would send DNT;1's
>>> that do not reflect any collected preference
>> To further the violent agreement, let me add that DNT expressions without 
>> being a reflection of the user's express intent would not fulfill the EU 
>> requirements for consent either. If we say DNT is a reflection/expression of 
>> a user's preference, we have to constrain it to something that at least 
>> remotely has something to do with a willful act from the user. 
>> Best, 
>> Rigo
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2012 02:51:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:40 UTC