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


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 Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 |

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" <> 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
>> 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