- From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:14:53 +0000
- To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Jeff, Your proposals doesn't feel practical if requesting an exemption within the body of a web page. Would an interstitial with a brief description be acceptable with a link to the more complete description of data collection and usage? Thanks, JC -----Original Message----- From: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:31 AM To: Jeffrey Chester; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Re: Action 93 Thanks Jeff - This is certainly a step in the right direction. I'd like to propose my own text for consideration. When seeking exemption when DNT:1 is sent sites should communicate those requests clearly, accurately and in line with consumer protection law(s) in the jurisdiction(s) in which they operate. Cheers, Alan Chapell Chapell & Associates 917 318 8440 On 2/22/12 9:16 AM, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org> wrote: >> When seeking exemption when DNT:1 is sent, a site must disclose on the >>first screen an accurate summary of their data tracking practices. It >>should succinctly and accurately explain how a user will be tracked on >>the site, and what data may be shared or used by third parties. The >>site should not rely on privacy statement that requires the user to >>travel to another page. Sites seeking an exemption should engage in >>additional disclosure when seeking a user exemption from DNT:1 > >
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 17:15:30 UTC