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

Tamir,

You are obviously free to personally conclude whatever outcome you feel is
likely from DNT: 1, but as James (not I) points out, it is highly
contested if widespread DNT: 1 is or is not privacy enhancing.

Just agreeing on the objective is hard enough.  Objectively DNT: 1 has
certain meanings.  Let's look for agreements there before we go to the
subjective, attenuated, value judgement as to if DNT:1 is or is not likely
to be privacy enhancing.

I'll stop beating the dead horse with that.

-Brooks

-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 8/22/12 5:08 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:

>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 21:35:47 UTC