- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:50:27 -0800
- To: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Cc: "(public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: > To the best of my recollection there was no objection to this issue when we agreed to take it up in Belgium. I think we are having word choice difficulty, plus have lost sight of the point of the issue. The use case, as I understood it from Tom, was for the sites like Duck, Duck, Go that will not implement DNT because they are afraid their users will think they do all of the various things allowed under DNT. It was not to create some new hurdle companies should do, but rather to give those (few, for commercial sites, I expect) who already follow the practices Ninja a way to make that clear to their users, beyond an un-read privacy policy. Otherwise, we will continue to have the odd situation that the most privacy-protective sites do not want to adopt DNT for fear it will scare their users away. Too bad. Why should privacy protective sites be less abused by DNT than other sites? I suggest we adopt solutions that are less of an issue for any site. > Bottom line: can someone suggest a better label for this than "absolutely not tracking"? I believe the tracking status resource solves this problem in a more elegant way, which means we don't need a response header field and this issue will be OBE. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 21:50:48 UTC