Re: Action 93

interesting concept and we should discuss.


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

On Feb 22, 2012, at 12:14 PM, JC Cannon wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>