For what it's worth I do not see how you can "blacklist" a UA that is supposedly noncompliant if it sends a valid DNT:1 You can write a letter to the vendor, you can call them out for being noncompliant, you can protest to regulatory authorities if they claim to be complaint when they are not. However, if you get a DNT:1 signal, it needs to be honored. On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Tamir Israel wrote: > OK -- I am not advocating two headers! Although one for each personality would probably lead to more accurate profiling ; P > > I suppose my concern was a combination of a.) how far will a UA's obligation to check that alterations to its DNT are 'reflective of user input' be stretched and b.) whether this opens up the door to more UA blacklisting potential. > > Best, > Tamir > > On 8/21/2012 5:13 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: >> Tamir, >> >> You are making this too complicated. UAs shouldn't be required to audit >> applications, plugins, etc - they should, per the spec, only ever send a >> signal which is consistent with a user preference. If they don't feel >> confident that what they are sending meets that requirement they shouldn't >> send anything. Anything else completely undermines the spec. If you send >> two DNT headers, you are by definition, non-compliant (schizophrenic users >> not withstanding). >> >> -Brooks >> >> ---------- John M. Simpson Consumer Advocate Consumer Watchdog 1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA,90405 Tel: 310-392-7041 Cell: 310-292-1902 www.ConsumerWatchdog.org john@consumerwatchdog.org
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 23:46:14 UTC