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

"the scenario is that the user visits a site, and the user-agent sends a DNT header, but the site isn't sure it reflects the user's true intentions.  If the site is designed so that it continues to allow access if it is satisfied it does indicate the user's intentions, then it might be concerned that, in this case, the site's chosen 3rd parties will be asked not to track when that was not the user's true request.  The advertising under these DNT circumstances may be less valuable, and the site may receive less compensation from the advertisers. Do I have it right?"

This is nonsensical to me. If the site does not believe the DNT:1 signal is valid, then why would anyone in the supply chain be expected to honor the invalid signal?  This highlights the concerns I have with your misunderstanding of the publisher/third party relationship, which underpins all of the Internet except closed systems like Apple's.

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:28 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote:

the scenario is that the user visits a site, and the user-agent sends a DNT header, but the site isn't sure it reflects the user's true intentions.  If the site is designed so that it continues to allow access if it is satisfied it does indicate the user's intentions, then it might be concerned that, in this case, the site's chosen 3rd parties will be asked not to track when that was not the user's true request.  The advertising under these DNT circumstances may be less valuable, and the site may receive less compensation from the advertisers. Do I have it right?