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

Once again, I want to raise concerns about the implications here.  It almost suggests that some are looking for ways to permit behavioral tracking companies to purposefully ignore the DNT:1 message.  That should not be acceptable and will also lead to lawsuits and other action, I imagine.  I did not support DNT:1 as default (along with concession on only limiting this to third parties, etc), as part of what advocates hope would be meaningful agreement limiting the collection and use of user data, as well as new tech ways to protect users.  We still are far apart on this issue, although I remain hopeful we can make progress.  The ball is in industry's court on this.  We will be looking for progress by Amsterdam.

But the overall tone of the conversation regarding IE is troubling to me--and I imagine to others.  We need to resolve this in a way that protects users--and doesn't permit practices that DNT is designed to address--such as halting forms of retargeting/"re-marketing."


On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:

> 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 | 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 6:41 PM, "Craig Spiezle" <craigs@otalliance.org> 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
>> experience
>> on many products.  While some may not like this scenario for the fear of
>> it
>> resulting in a higher adoption of DNT, it is our opinion it does
>> constitute
>> user choice (again assuming notice of what DNT means.   We would like to
>> see
>> a link or added content sharing what DNT does and the benefits and trade
>> off).  
>> 
>> At the same time  adding friction to the user to discourage the selection
>> is
>> short sided and is what occurred in IE 8 when InPrivate was neutered.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:23 PM
>> To: David Singer
>> Cc: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>> Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that
>> sets
>> 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
>> commonly
>> used in a lot of contexts.
>> 
>> Second, I'm wondering if people feel that by rejecting this approach, we
>> are
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220