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


I'm not seeing it. DNT-1 is a preference for privacy. It very directly
expresses 'I want you to respect my privacy, please do not track [insert
definition] my online browsing'.

If it also means that I will be faced with a second choice -- out of
bound consent; request for an exception for a specific service; etc.,
which I may say yes or no to on a case by case basis, depending on the
particular terms of the OOB, or the service requesting an exception --
in no way diminishes the fact that my initial expression 'Do Not Track
Me' indicates a preference for privacy with respect to my online browsing.

I agree that sites will need to be funded, one way or another, but this
does not change the underlying character of my 'DNT-1' as an expression
of a preference for privacy.


On 8/22/2012 2:58 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
> Tamir,
> I again note that DNT: 1 is NOT a preference FOR privacy.  It is a
> preference that a recipient server will process data in accordance with
> the compliance spec as required by the signal.  The net impact of the
> server's behavior may or may not on the whole be more or less privacy
> protective for the individual concerned.  A user may reasonably conclude
> that DNT: 0 or unset is likely to have a better net impact on privacy.
> Being asked for OOB exception or a micropayment for content may not, in
> many reasonable minds, be privacy enhancing.
> I am not being pedantic here.  We must be conscious that we aren't
> discussing IF ad supported websites will continue to be funded but HOW.
> If a donut store offers you "free" donuts for giving their advertising
> sponsors your IP address and cookie as you wait in line but then is
> required by protocol not to collect those things, you may expect the shop
> will ask you for a credit card when you get to the register (or they'll
> close).  
> -Brooks

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 19:55:46 UTC