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

Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:55:42 -0700
Message-Id: <EF06200B-D67F-44EC-AD43-7F369326F53E@consumerwatchdog.org>
Cc: Tamir Israel <tisrael@CIPPIC.CA>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
My understanding is the working group's position is that a UA must reflect the user's intent. If it does not, then the UA is not compliant.  I don't believe there is a consensus around the responsibility of a compliant server when it receives a DNT:1 message from a UA that might be noncompliant.



On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> John,
> 
> I thought we already agreed in the working group to remain silent on this situation and allow implementers to defend their actions with respect to sending invalid flags.  Correct?  I understand your personal views here but I wanted to reconfirm the working group end-point on this issue.
>  
> Thank you,
> Shane
>  
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:46 PM
> To: Tamir Israel
> Cc: Dobbs, Brooks; David Singer; David Wainberg; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); Nicholas Doty; Shane Wiley
> Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers
>  
> 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
>  

----------
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 23:55:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:54 UTC