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: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:08:47 -0400
Message-ID: <50354A5F.1020800@cippic.ca>
To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
CC: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I do not agree with this. DNT-1 is a general indication that a user does 
not wish to be tracked or, alternatively, that they want privacy in 
their browsing. I'm sorry, but I do not see another way to interpret this.

On 8/22/2012 4:55 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
> We are in agreement that funding will continue, so in the end DNT: 1 will be a choice about how you want to pay, not if your going to.  I am not hearing any discussion about a more privacy friendly form of funding than
> advertising, so it seems a stretch to assume that a new, heretofore
> unknown, way of funding replaces it which is necessarily more privacy
> protective.
>
> -Brooks

We are NOT in agreement that this will be the result in every case. When 
I set DNT-1, I am telling everyone that I do not wish to be tracked. 
Some services may then ask me to opt back in, to choose an alternative 
means of payment, or to agree to an alternative means of tracking. But I 
can say no to any or all of these on a case by case basis -- already a 
vast privacy improvement over the free for all that currently exists. So 
I simply do not see how a DNT-1 can be anything *other* than an 
indication of a preference for privacy.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:09:30 UTC

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