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

Again let's be careful with our language here.  This isn't just about
"making a choice".  "Do you like hot dogs (1) or hamburgers (0)?", is a
choice, but it is not a representation of a user's preference with respect
to how they wish a recipient server to respond in relation to the DNT
Compliance Spec.  The later is what a UA is required to have before
sending a signal.  

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 6:41 PM, "Craig Spiezle" <> wrote:

>In the context of the user having to choose either express or customized
>settings, I tend to believe the user has made an choice.  This assume
>neither radio button is pre-selected.  This is a common first run
>on many products.  While some may not like this scenario for the fear of
>resulting in a higher adoption of DNT, it is our opinion it does
>user choice (again assuming notice of what DNT means.   We would like to
>a link or added content sharing what DNT does and the benefits and trade
>At the same time  adding friction to the user to discourage the selection
>short sided and is what occurred in IE 8 when InPrivate was neutered.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tamir Israel []
>Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:23 PM
>To: David Singer
>Cc: Shane Wiley; (
>Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that
>DNT headers
>Here's a screenshot.
>Again, I personally agree there are problems with relying on this type of
>mechanism as 'express user preference', but in spite of that, it is
>used in a lot of contexts.
>Second, I'm wondering if people feel that by rejecting this approach, we
>veering into UI-constraint land?
>On 8/22/2012 6:15 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> Perhaps we should wait to see the actual product; we may be off into
>hypothetical weeds here.

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:17:48 UTC