- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:05:09 -0700
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, 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>
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dxuk2+5ChnMPPt6Ma8Q3-Bisgy2ei4w2=M1zQebDxTGg@mail.gmail.com>
Hypothetical situation here. Server gets a DNT:1 request from a browser. Browser ships DNT:1 by default. Browser doesn't implement exceptions. Browser may or may not block third party cookies by default. What exactly is the server supposed to do in this case? -Ian On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > Jeff,**** > > ** ** > > I disagree both on your philosophical position (compliant Servers must > honor non-compliant UAs) but more importantly as part of the working group > process. Hopefully we can review this (again) at the next TPE weekly > meeting.**** > > ** ** > > - Shane**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:56 PM > *To:* Shane Wiley > *Cc:* John Simpson; Tamir Israel; Dobbs, Brooks; David Singer; David > Wainberg; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); Nicholas Doty > > *Subject:* Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that > sets DNT headers**** > > ** ** > > Shane: I don't believe we have said such flags are "invalid." I agree > with John, DNT:1 must be honored. We should not penalize privacy by design, > a policy most stakeholders support. **** > > Regards,**** > > ** ** > > Jeff**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:49 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<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**** > > **** > > ** ** > > Jeffrey Chester**** > > Center for Digital Democracy**** > > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550**** > > Washington, DC 20009**** > > www.democraticmedia.org**** > > www.digitalads.org**** > > 202-986-2220**** > > ** ** >
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:05:41 UTC