W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2012

Re: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78]

From: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:36:48 -0800
Message-ID: <4F0F6E90.10402@mozilla.com>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Correction: "All parties" in the DNT:0 blurb should be "Both first and
third parties". The header only imparts
information/permission/preferences to the party receiving it, not to
anyone else. That was just sloppy writing on my part.

Does anyone have any suggestions for modifications to this? Roy, if we
don't get any suggested changes, could you incorporate this before the
"let's read it on the plane" document freeze?

On 01/12/2012 03:02 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
>> On 01/10/2012 06:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> 1	Do not track me across differently-branded sites and do not use
>>> previously tracked/obtained behavioral data from other sites to
>>> personalize a response.
>>>
>>> 0	Use of cross-site tracking and personalization has been
>>> specifically permitted for this site, as described in section 6.
>>> User-agent-managed site-specific exceptions.
>>
>> [Section 4, 4.1]
>> As mentioned on the call, I was surprised to see this definition of
>> DNT:0 positioned as a site-specific exception to a general DNT:1
>> preference. I was expecting (and others on the call seemed to assume) a
>> quite different approach. My understanding is more as follows:
>>
>>
>> DNT:1 Tells everyone who receives it that I have a heightened preference
>> for privacy and against being tracked. First parties mustn't share any
>> information about me. Third parties must treat me like someone about
>> whom they know nothing, and remember nothing about me later.
>>
>> DNT:0 Tells everyone who receives it that I have a preference towards a
>> personalized service, and consent to tracking. All parties may gather
>> data and learn about me and should use that information to improve my
>> experience with them.
> 
> I have no problem defining it that way if that is how user agents intend
> to implement it.  What I wrote is how it is currently implemented, AFAICT.
> I agree that the current state isn't as crisp as what you describe above,
> for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Can we get some input from the other browser vendors?
> 
> ....Roy
> 


Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 23:37:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC